Sunday, July 29, 2007

New Duke Position

According to Inside Higher Ed, Duke is seeking a new director for “Diversity and Equity,” whose task will be “to provide training and support diversity initiatives.”

The justification:

An environment characterized by exemplary academic performance and high levels of employee productivity requires an organizational culture that sets clear expectations, provides appropriate support and engenders respect and dignity.

Engendering “respect and dignity,” presumably, would require not rushing to judgment based on students’ race, class, gender, or athletic status—through such initiatives as distributing “wanted” posters or 88 faculty members signing a denunciatory ad cited by the students' own attorneys as highly prejudicial.

The expectations include:

Provide consultation to senior leaders, managers and supervisors in designing and implementing department-wide and institution-wide changes to ensure diversity, equity and respect for all faculty, staff, students and patients.

Since President Brodhead has thrice defended the Group of 88’s statement—indeed, once going so far to describe the Group as professors who “signed a petition defending students who as minorities, felt threatened by the situation”—it would seem that respect for “all faculty, staff, students, and patients” will not be a priority of the new “diversity and equity” director.

The position has an academic component as well. The director is expected to “provide support, advice and consultation to Duke University departments in their efforts to enhance diversity and inclusion among undergraduate and graduate students.”

If the new director were to implement this task fairly, among his or her first assignments should be scheduling a seminar for the AAAS department on how sponsoring a denunciatory ad targeting a group of the school’s students does not enhance “inclusion.” Somehow, I doubt that will occur.

The job requirements:

Minimum requirement is a Masters degree in education, social work, psychology, business or a related field. Excellent interpersonal and cross-cultural communication and presentation skills. Outstanding listening, collaboration and team building skills. Proven capacity to analyze and implement diversity and inclusion strategies. Demonstrated skill in conflict resolution and problem-solving. Clear understanding of cross-cultural and diversity theory and practice. Sophisticated knowledge of organizational change formulations. Demonstrated ability to work effectively within a culturally diverse workforce and provide leadership in organizational change. Ability to focus on strategic goals and implement appropriate interventions.

In theory, of course, such a position is perfectly appropriate. But given the track record of the past 17 months, in which all students were not treated equally by some quarters of the faculty and administration based on their race, class, gender, or athletic status, it seems unlikely that the new director will treat all students equally.


Anonymous said...


Please consider sending a letter to Duke's Brodhead. Ask him if he expects this new director to train the G88 on how to be more inclusive and fair.

Respect and dignity runs both ways. That includes expecting black faculty to be fair to whites, as well as vice versa.

Anonymous said...

Now that affirmative action and other politically correct forms of racism and sexism are under attack by reasonable, fair-minded people, "diversity" has become the new buzzword for the kind of neo-racism and sexism that people like the G88 embrace. Therefore, whenever you hear "diversity" you need to think politically correct racism and sexism.

From the description of qualifications for the candidate, it appears that what Duke is looking for is someone who can codify the philosophy and behavior of the G88, not address the wrongdoings of those people. Sadly, this sort of position is very common across academia at PC institutions.

Like a fungus, the rot will just keep spreading unless we intervene and eradicate it.

Anonymous said...


May I make a recommendation for this new post. Why not one of the Group of 88, namely, the erudite Prof Ho.

She appears to be quite reserved and tends to work behind the scenes ("don't quote from my e-mails"). Her desire for diversity cannot be questioned (if one is non-white, female or Maoist). Her sharply honed communication skills are amply demonstrated by her use of newspaper ads and group speak (a widely spokened dialect in US elite circles.)

IMO, a very suitable choice and would enhance Duke's image by promoting from within.


Anonymous said...


Insert {sic] after Masters--should be "master's"

Perhaps you could email the Office of "Diversity" and ask them to be specific about what constitutes an "inclusion strategy."

This is news I can use.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Brodhead and the Duke trustees intend to ignore the shameful behavior of the 88 professors. What will it take to get Duke to change?

Anonymous said...

Wow, this is scary. I thought after Duke settled with the lacrosse players that Duke's administration would have reassessed their position on this stuff. It seems that the last thing Duke needs now is another layer of political correctness.

Gary Packwood said...

Job Description says...

...Ability to focus on strategic goals and implement appropriate interventions.
Interventions is one of the new weasel words of the loopy left to include public health professionals who want to force Latino parents to cut back on fat foods they feed to their kids.

Adding another level of management at Duke should be much fun to watch...especially if the person really is going to intervene.

I strongly suggest that Duke employ an African American Black women who is a lesbian and wheel chair bound for the position.

That would be strategic.

Duke students must think that adults over the age of thirty are ...nuts.

Anonymous said...

Duke is doomed and damned....
The alumni of the pre-insanity era must be furious and embarrassed.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of the job description, a "Diversity and Equity" director is still basically a low-level lackey. Presumably it's still Brodhead who is defining the "strategic goals" and "appropriate interventions" for the institution. Also, presumably, department heads in particular and tenured faculty in general will continue to do as they please, beyond the control of the administration.

Still, the background of whoever is hired for this position will provide some insight into whether Brodhead has learned anything lately.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

How can a University be 'diverse' when it only supports one side?

Reminds me of a wisecrack about leftists - how they will fight to the death for your right to agree with them.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many straight, white males will send in their resumes for consideration.


Anonymous said...

this is the ultimate victory for the group of 88....more of the same ...much more. After the next crisis they will appoint yet another person to oversee this person who oversees all the other persons in charge of diversity. It never ends they just get more doctrinaire and more staff

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mikey should apply for the new Duke position. He's got those diversity and communication skills nailed.

Nifong charge may be a first

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
Jul 28, 2007 : 9:40 pm ET

Just as the controversial Duke lacrosse case was no run-of-the-mill prosecution, a criminal contempt charge arising from it is anything but a garden-variety, ho-hum piece of litigation.

Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who has resigned and been disbarred, faces the charge for allegedly lying about DNA evidence favorable to three defendants in the lacrosse incident.

He could receive a fine of up to $500 or a 30-day jail term, or both. A hearing is set for Aug. 30.

Many lawyers and judges say they never saw anything like it.

Contempt almost always involves more predictable issues -- mouthing off to a judge or failing to show up for jury duty. One local juror was fined for violating orders not to discuss a homicide trial outside court.

But a contempt charge against a former elected district attorney for alleged dishonesty may be the first of its kind, lawyers and judges agree.

The charge accuses Nifong of lying about DNA evidence that indicated three lacrosse players did not sexually assault an exotic dancer during an off-campus party on North Buchanan Boulevard in March 2006.

The same genetic results showed the woman did have intimate contact with several other men.

Nifong allegedly withheld the scientific information and said he didn't have it when he did.

The accusation was leveled at him by lacrosse defense lawyers. It was followed up with a finding of "probable cause" by Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III, assigned by the state's chief justice to oversee the case.

Now, as the August contempt proceeding nears, some question whether Smith should decide Nifong's fate -- since Smith helped initiate the criminal action and theoretically could be considered a witness.

"Any time a judge is a potential witness, he may be asked to recuse himself," said John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

"To be fair and impartial, you should have no interest in the outcome of the case," Fitzpatrick added. "It can give the appearance of impropriety. I've always known Judge Smith to be very fair and am sure he will be now, but public perceptions are still very important."

Veteran lawyer Fred Battaglia agreed the contempt proceeding creates a judicial dilemma.

"The accused has an absolute right to face and cross-examine the accuser," Battaglia said. "In this case, the court [judge] is the accuser. Sure, the lacrosse case was unusual. But that doesn't mean you usurp constitutional law."

He said Smith should recuse himself.

"I think another judge should be brought in," Battaglia said. "That would allow Judge Smith to be put on the witness stand under oath. Then Mr. Nifong could question him. To me, that is black-letter constitutional law."

Chapel Hill attorney Jim Glover, representing Nifong, had no comment.

Another question arose last week: whether Nifong's fate should be decided by any judge, let alone Smith.

Glover argued unsuccessfully that the case should be put before a jury.

"The federal constitutional right to trial by jury exists in criminal contempt cases," said Glover, adding that the right becomes an even "more robust animal" under state law.

"It's not just a right," he said. "It's the only way the Constitution says you may go. ... Contempt is a criminal charge for purposes of what rights must apply."

But Charles M. Davis, a Franklin County lawyer assigned to prosecute the contempt charge against Nifong, said Glover was off base.

He said the state's current contempt law, dating back to 1977, makes no mention of jury trials.

"The courts all over the country in criminal contempt proceedings have not provided for a jury trial," Davis argued. "He [Nifong] is not entitled to a jury trial. The court has followed the letter of the law. The statute has been complied with."

The ruling that Nifong cannot put his case before a jury sparking mixed reactions in the Durham legal community.

"Why don't you err on the side of caution and give the man a jury trial?" asked Pat Evans, who ran unsuccessfully for district attorney during the 1990s.

"A jury trial would do so much to heal Durham," Evans said. "The people of Durham should decide which way this thing should go. Put 12 people in the box and let them decide."

But Lawyer Mark Edwards contended that a jury trial "is just not the procedure" for contempt proceedings.

"It's not how it's done or how it should be done under the law," Edwards said.

Nifong dismissed rape charges in December against the three lacrosse players: Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans.

All remaining charges were dismissed in April by state Attorney General Roy Cooper, who declared them innocent and upbraided Nifong for trying to prosecute them in the first place.

During a preliminary hearing Thursday on the contempt issue, Nifong apologized to the men and their families, admitting he had lacked "credible evidence."


Anonymous said...

Anyone want to predict what the gender, race, and sexual orientation of the selected director might be?

I am betting on a white male heterosexual jock. On the other hand, such a director might be a bit overqualified.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Well Duke could always hire a black or Asian or Latino conservative for this position, joint appoint them in a department and make members of the gang of 88 deal with someone of different ideas. Probably won't happen, but if Brodhead were not foolish it would.

The Drill SGT said...

Seems to me that they are describing the person who will lead the next pot banging exercise. Coordinate with the departments on producing the next Group of 88 ad, etc.

too bad that the ex-frat president fair haired (well figuratively anyway) boy of Brodhead doesn't have a MS, he'd be perfect.

mac said...

Duke should hire Lt. Warf:
that's about the only way they
can get the Klingons off their
collective behinds.

Klingons, BTW, is a good title for
most of the 88, as they cling on
to the fantasy that "something happened."

Klingons are also what we use
TP for, somewhere 'round the vicinity
of the 7th planet.

Klingons/cling-ons: same-same.

Warf would work for the position.
Not much sense in hiring someone else:
you need someone who knows Klingons well enough to know the secret to removing 'em!

Anonymous said...

KC, thank you for hitting the nail on the head. In theory the pursuit of diversity and equality is not only laudable but vital for our society. In practice it has done immeasurable harm, as it encourages people to fill themselves with hate as long as that hate is towards the "dominant", and true, valuable scholarship has been displaced by that same hate dressed up in verbal puffery.

Anonymous said...

May I make a recommendation for this new post. Why not one of the Group of 88, namely, the erudite Prof Ho.

IMO, a very suitable choice and would enhance Duke's image by promoting from within.


Come on, get with it Ken.

Prof. Ho isn't one of the 88. She's not even employed by Duke. She's at UNC.

For internal candidates, I'd put my money on Wahneema (if she's not too busy with her forthcoming books), Chauncey Nartey, or, as a longshot if the hiring committee decides to go caucasian, Kim Curtis.

For outside candidates, look for Chan Hall and Victoria Peterson to receive strong consideration. Apparently Mike Nifong himself is available and interested, but his "conflict resolution skills" may be considered insufficient at this time.

Anonymous said...

This will be a person whose charge it is to intimidate students, faculty or staff who disagree with the 88 -- any disagreement will be not showing enough "respect". What a sad development.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to know how much money this position pays. Even more interesting would be to find out how much money is spent on promoting "diversity".

This is a vicious circle. The more money that gets spent on this nonsense, the more the school will be accused of racism and other prejudices in order to justify the expenditure of money.

Duke does not need this position. But once the person is hired that person will spend most of his or her waking hours justifying their outrageous salary.

Duke is literally paying people to hate most of the Duke community. It doesn't get much nuttier than this.

Anonymous said...

Just as the social science departments are filled with ill-qualified, agenda-driven, mush-heads, the student life, residential and housing, and other departments are used for activist indoctrination -- to the detriment of meritocracy, freedom, diversity of thought, and teaching students to act (and interact) as adults.

The "cure" is clearly much worse than the disease, in that it tends to actually not address underlying problems, but suppresses them and reinforces notions that there are protected minorities who can't make it without all sorts of extra help and lower standards and that things have to happen through classification into rigid categories and quotas, rather than at an individual level.

Rational thought and the ability to take in all sides should be the first requirement for any such position, not radical "thought" and fitting the agenda. And, obviously, any hidden race/sex/orientation/other requirements are the height of hypocrisy. Also, remember that before all of this happened, Duke was winning awards for diversity. What has the big problem been? Most readers here seem to get it.

Anonymous said...

Thinking back to KC's coverage of the infectious Michael Hardt.....

.....seems that he would be a great candidate for the new Duke position. I mean, this guy has it all. Talk about diversity and love......he's even intimately familiar with orchids and wasps.

According to Hardt, wasps are attracted to orchids because of the pheromones emitted and because the orchid's inner shape is similar to the shape of the vagina.

Really? I know all about pheromones. Even have a bottle of perfume called Pheromone.

Perhaps we'll need to get some orchids as well.

Hot love inside the greenhouse!

Hardt most certainly would bring a new kind of diversity to Duke. I vote for him!



Anonymous said...

My favorite job requirement is "Prepare reports for OIE and other Duke University/Duke Health System stakeholders." Thats about the only one that sounds like work, and it couldn't take up more than two or three weeks out of the year. Then there may be the occaisional outsourced workshop. The rest of the time, this person will be sitting on his ass.

I think the real purpose Broadhead and other administrators have in mind for this position is to serve as a buffer between them and the radical faculty.

Then, whenever a controversy arises, they'll try to dump it on the diversity guy as much as possible, so they don't have to deal directly with the G88 types as much themselves. This intermediary can insulate Broadhead and other administrators, and save them a lot of time and grief.

This, of course, means that the only real requirement is to be someone who is of the G88 mindset that Broadhead doesn't mind talking to.

Anonymous said...

Here's his follow-up. Very funny.



Anonymous said...

These positions are created to give the school deniability in case of incidents like the lax case. Unfortunately it doesn't work. It just leads to the constant search for examples of "institutional racism" and "gender bias" to justify the salaries of the holders of such jobs.

The situation at Duke and at many other institutions is not very hopeful. The offices of diversity or multiculturalism have a vested interest in seeing the world from the vantage point of racial/gender/orientation/class bias and so incite conflict rather than ameliorate it.

Anonymous said...

White male students in the Class of '11 are less than 20 % of the total student population. Why not just eliminate them altogether and be done with it? Then they wont need no diversity director since his job will be accomplished

Anonymous said...

It seems to me, if I were
Brodhead [whoa!!! I typed that without thinking. That is an ugly thought.]

Start over;
One imagines Brodhead sees himself as a complete and total winner in this matter. Leaving aside considerations of morality and decency (as he plainly did) he still has his job, the total support of the Board and the effective support of the faulty. He paid compensation which, no matter how large, is a drop in the bucket. And anyway, it's not his bucket. You can just imagine how much he cares that money, supposed to be for education, has now been used to cover up wrongdoing.

Oh well. At least we can hope (as my sainted grandmother Mullane used to say) that he's screaming when he dies.

Michael said...

[Minimum of 5 years of experience with progressive responsibility in education, psychology, social work or business with attendant training responsibility. Minimum of 3 years of supervisory experience. Fluency in Spanish preferred.]

Looks like Duke is making a big Latino pitch.

Anonymous said...

just another way for broadrot to misuse ENDOWMENT FUNDS and run up the cost of duke education

im sure the impetus for this was to add an 89th new member to the group of 88 and of course broadrot will allow them the luxury of selecting the dummy...

THIS IS A make work POSITION...from a slime socialist who has no respect for money...OPM that is OTHER PEOPLES MONEY

Anonymous said...

To me, the Duke case will always be about the failure of integration, and the diversity spot proves my point. The whole point of a "diversity" sergeant is the presumption that the majority culture is racist and sexist. Rubbish!

"Can't we all just get along?"

I think not.

Am I wrong?

Anonymous said...

Thank God only one more year of tuition in the Peoples Republic of Duke. What once was a premier institution of higher learning is quickly becoming the laughing stock of political correctness run amuck. Pretty soon the entire student population will be on some kind of financial aid program and there will be no one to really pay the bills.

mac said...

"Outstanding listening, collaboration and team-building skills."


"Listening," like the "Listening Statement." That kind of listening?

"Collaboration," a word that some used with frequency to describe
the collaborative (and possibly criminal) efforts of the Hoaxers
from A to Z.

"Team-building skills," which is what Duke showed when it teamed
up with the DPD to reduce the students' rights to zilch.

Seems like they've already got their team in place.

Anonymous said...

Minimum requirement is a Masters degree in education, social work, psychology, business or a related field.

Demonstrated skill in conflict resolution and problem-solving.

While sitting here contemplating the strange......I need to apply for that position!

"related fields" of study-- (OK) and the "conflict resolution" thing is a task I would savor.

If Brodhead and company were really serious about this position as being one of creating change and ensuring that ALL students are treated fairly and with respect, then I would love to get ahold of a Gritty Gang 88 member or two during one of those conflict resolutions.

I could easily solve a few problems for them.

The field of candidates is wide open!

For a Brodhead puppet, of course.


mac said...

More requirements:

"Diversity theory and practice."
Is that another form of "queer-theory,"
and does it mean that the
hireling will have to practice it?

Diversity theory? Is that like chaos theory?
(At Duke, it certainly could be implied,
in the metaphorical sense.)
Maybe they should hire someone from Physics?

Maybe they're advertising - under the radar - for Brodhead's
position? I thought those were his jobs?
Or is he just a pucker-up, whose
nose is so brown it could pass for
Santa's lead reindeer?

Anyone wanna bet they hire someone who was an English Major undergrad?
Debrah is probably right: Hardt's their man - (so-to-speak.)

Anonymous said...

TO "mac" 1:36PM--



Anonymous said...

anon at 1:04 said
the failure of integration

Here's my take:

Cpl. Addison: In 1960 all the lying sadistic shlamiels on the DPD were all white. Now they come in all colors.

In 1960 all the dumbfxck judges in the superior court of Durham were white. Not any more.

What else was integration supposed to fix? The heart of man?

The moral argument for integration is that we are all the same. Addison and Hudson demonstrate that great truth.

Integration is a big problem for those who have to make a living out of racism.

Anonymous said...

Bull manure . . . diversity means anyone but a white male period. What a joke this whole affair has become. These people, Duke University and its administration, did not know how to treat their students because they were white males and perceived to be "rich" and that was excuse enough to lynch them. Do you think the benighted Duke Group88 would listen to someone with only a master's degree? I don't think so. They didn't listen to the law. They were not restrained by common sense. Experience might teach them, but for these people there are no consequences. They are above the law. S.... Duke.

One Spook said...

All Brodhead has done in this instance is borrow from the Harvard playbook.

When Harvard President Larry Summers was going down in flames in 2005, he announced a new 50 million dollar "faculty diversity iniative" to go on top of the untold millions already spent at Harvard on "diversity."

This didn't help Summers keep his job, but the program lived on, of course!

Heather McDonald eviscerates Summers' plan here: Harvard’s Diversity Grovel

This is the standard response. Instead of addressing the least ideologically diverse and most racist, sexist group on campus --- the cabal of race, gender and class, you instead, spend more money and create YET ANOTHER idiotic, senseless program to appease them.

When will this madness stop?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

This has been done before. In the late 80's somebody told racially derogatory jokes on the student radio station at the University of Michigan, my Alma Mater, which led to well publicized protests and demands, and precipitated a national theme about the "rising tide of campus racism."

At the time, U-M had a President named Shapiro who had integrity and guts, and didn't easily cave in to ridiculous demands. Shapiro got little support, however, and eventually left for Princeton.

His replacement, a guy named Duderstat, always tried to placate the pressure groups. Like Broadhead, he didn't do what was fair, but rather, he took the path of least resistance. Also, like Broadhead, he initiated a lot of knee-jerk measures, including hiring a Diversity Guy like the one Duke is looking for. But none if this worked, in fact it backfired.

As it turned out, after the protesters saw how easily U-M was intimidated, they just kept coming back for more, with one cause after another to be outraged about.

The Diversity guy talked tough on several TV appearances, saying racism was a definite problem, but that it had to be dealt with rationally, etc. That is, until the protesters thought up a new cause. Then he just fumbled around, making mealy-mouth comments, and agreeing with them.

I bet you this guy didn't work 10 hours a week, and whenever there was a problem, he did absolutely nothing to avoid or solve it.

Duke is just throwing more money away, on something that won't work, not even as a symbolic gesture.

Anonymous said...

"Outstanding collaboration skills"???

You mean, like the Vichy Milice?


Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 1:04 pm.

I think you may be wrong. If you don't let the way the mainstream media reports on race issues unduly influence your outlook. I think that the problem doesn't stem from integration but rather the lack of integration. When people of different races get a chance to know each other and are put in the same boat together they will get along pretty much as well (and as poorly) as people of the same race do. I think there are bigger political divisions in this country than racial divisions. The hate that the far right and far left spew at each other everyday goes well beyond the most contentious dialogue on race issues (although, as in this case, they sometimes overlap). They don't seem to recognize that they are two opposite sides of the same coin and many people have no use for either.

In my interaction with my AA friends, I find that most of them are in agreement with me on most issues and are in many ways more conservative than my white liberal friends. (I tend to despise all politicians and consider myself to be very slightly right of center.) They know that Sharpton and Jackson are professional race baiters and don't pay them all that much attention. I spent all day yesterday with AA friends at an athletic event involving a team on which our daughters (who are vey close friends) play. Its my impression that they, like me, are more concerned with character and conduct than color when judging people. Of course they are also middle class people with families, which may explain their views.

My experiences lead me to think that our problems stem more from continued and worsening social and economic segregation than integration. Of course groups like the G88 do more harm than good when it comes to the causes they supposedly espouse. They are more interested in protecting and advancing their comfortable niche in academia than in achieving something that could tangibly advance the cause of the people they purport to champion.

But no, I don't think integration is a failed policy. When the media only reports the sensationalized points of conflict, it might seem that way but in many communities it hasn't even been tried yet.

Gary Packwood said...

rod allison, detroit 12:20 said...

...I think the real purpose Broadhead and other administrators have in mind for this position is to serve as a buffer between them and the radical faculty.
You suppose this diversity position is Duke's response to part of the settlement with Finnerty et al?

mac said...

2:09 Jeff M


Anonymous said...

Aw lets be optimistic -- maybe this position was a result of Duke's settlement with the falsely indicted players.... maybe this position will seek diversity without quotas and eliminate racism by eliminating rasism (racist practices)


Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:05am said: "this is the ultimate victory for the group of 88....more of the same ...much more. After the next crisis they will appoint yet another person to oversee this person who oversees all the other persons in charge of diversity. It never ends they just get more doctrinaire and more staff."

I just figured out where all those grads with Angry Studies degrees will be working: In the Diversity Industry.

Heaven help us.

Anonymous said...

To me the Duke case will always be about injustice. A DA run amuck and no one in the justice system (NC or DOJ) willing to stop him, until his crimes were so bad, they had to kill him.
Intergration is here to stay. Black leaders need to lead - help their people through the wilderness to a better life. Of course, with the local newspapers articles, ruthies contribution and Nifong's statements, the black community was inflamed.

Anonymous said...

Of course integration is a good thing.

As long as everyone brings a sense of responsibility and mutual respect to the table there isn't even an issue; however, this is not the environment we now have in this country.

Talk to an educated senior citizen who is black. Their views are quite similar to those of their white counterparts with regard to taking responsibility for yourself and not blaming other people for problems that can only be solved individually.

The trouble is with the underclass as well as the young and the middle-aged blacks who are steeped in the '60s movement and fail to move ahead......because manufacturing grievances for everything under the sun is how many make a living.

Unfortunately, the younger generations--post Civil Rights Movement--have not used that movement as a springboard for the future. They have chosen to stay mired in the status of "victim", even when it is clear to all that they are most often victimized by no one, but actually victimize others with their senseless and circular agendas.

We saw those bullies from the Gang of 88 get badly burned this time by whipping up tales of mass victimhood.....all the while doing damage to some young people.....and not giving a damn about how they harmed these innocent men.

After this Lacrosse Hoax, and after seeing the behavior of so many of the race hustlers, even the very Liberal Lefties have begun to step back and ask.....What the hell kind of people am I supporting?

Gross self-indulgence and ego-tripping did them in this time. It's up to everyone who wants true fairness in our society to be ever watchful and stop feeling so intimidated by these self-serving bullies. It's just sick.

Although I would never put any member of the Gritty Gang of 88, even remotely, in the same category as actor Robert DeNiro, but his character in the film Heat is a good analogy for those who just can't lighten up and let things go......who can't seem to ever get enough of their obsessions. They keep digging and sooner or later, they bury themselves.

DeNiro's character just had to take the exit to a hotel on his way to the airport to board a flight which would have taken him to a better future...away from crime. But he just had to make that stop and whack a guy out of revenge.

Ooops! Then came along the unrelenting cop played by Pacino.

Self-indulgence was maxed out.

We all need to be little Pacinos when we see the bullies and the race hustlers overplaying their cards and doing harm.

Those pathetic and cruel hustlers who feed on the manufactured guilt of the weak must be feeling a lot like lions without a Christian right about now.



Anonymous said...

All this talk of self actualizing in University is a laugh. I spent over a half a million dollars on my kids educations in the great schools of the East and Mid West- up to and including a PHD. Going to school is about getting a marketable skill - earning a living, if you will. they went to the best school they could get into. Never once, did I review the courses they took. If an eighteen plus can not figure that out on their own, they do not belong in higher education. Duke will do just fine.

Anonymous said...


Join the Columbia House Diversity Book Club and pay only shipping and handling for your first five selections! Then, just purchase three more Diversity Club selections at regular price from our huge catalog of diverse selections! We will ship a new Diversity Club book to you every month with no obligation to you.

Just look at some of our diverse selections:

THOMAS THE RAINBOW CHOO-CHOO (reg. price US $79.85). Your toddler will enjoy the hijinks of Thomas the Rainbow Choo-Choo as he causes problems at the railyard, gets promoted to Engineer based upon his sexual orientation and falsely accuses the Evil Big White Cabooses. Be the first in your neighborhood to teach your child the benefits of victimhood! Ages 3-9.

THE HOLY DIVERSITY SCRIPTURES, (King Jesse Version) (reg. price $242.00). This is the "Bible" for all of our brothers and sisters. Some excerpts:

"FRAUDS, ch.3,v.17: Taketh thine Holy "R" word and shouteth it at thine enemies so that they may lie down as the lamb, then cooketh them."

"AXE I, ch.1,v.1: Do unto others."

"AXE I, ch.1,v.2: Don't apologize."

"REPARATIONS, ch.5,v.1: In the End Time, the Chosen will thusly demand the GREAT PAYMENT, and shall neither accept apologies nor Diner's Card, but shall use the GREAT WHITE GUILT to claim diversity riches beyond measure. Amen."

TUESDAYS WITH JOHNNY FLOATING PENIS: THE TRANSGENDERED INTERSPECIEST MAYAN IMAN (reg. price $159.99). We're not sure what this one is about, but you won't need "Queer Theory" to decipher what Johnny Floating Penis is up to! This book topped the bestsellers list for 3 weeks because it contains characters from 7 different races and 5 diverse sexual orientations! Rated "P" for Prurient.

"K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor opted out of the Columbia House Diversity Book Club." N.Y.Times Book Review (Aug. 2007). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

You are very correct. I have spent most of my life in an integrated society and find that the only problems generally come from those who have an agenda to meet or those who feel that they are entitled to something for nothing.
The likes of the "black leadership" (Jackson, Sharpton, Barber, etc) are only successful when they are race-baiting. It's sad that those who purport to be "leaders" are, in point of fact, only looking to advance their own personal agendas. Their purpose is not to lead but rather to succeed, preferably financially. Sadly, they have been able to recruit a rather large following not really capable of personal thought.
I also agree that angry studies grads are suited only for diversity positions. Diversity--it's all over the US. After all, it's what we are made of. Why do we need diversity police? Could it be only a self-serving position for those who crave control but don't have the mental wherewithall to gain it?
Another day in Wonderland. Everyone submit your application ASAP. Let's bombard Duke with applications. Come on down.


Anonymous said...

w/r/t Debrah's comment

What does LIS mean? (I'm a fogie, I admit it.)

I have no idea what the commenter was thinking when s/he opined that integration's failure is the main story of the Duke case. Here's my take on that.

Since we're discussing this diversity officer absurdity, it occurs to me that for "integration" to be successful in the US, blacks always have to filing grievances, and whites have to be making ongoing concessions to blacks' demands. Think of this as it played out in the hoax:

@ Brodhead conferred full departmental status on AAAS because of the demands of black faculty. How much will that cost Duke on a per annum basis God only knows. Remember, too, that it was AAAS profs who were at the center of the Group's rush to judgment.

@ The falsely accused lacrosse players' attorneys were forced to seek a change of venue. Why? Because whites cannot get an impartial jury in a majority-black city. Another failure of integration.

@ Why hasn't Ms. Mangum been prosecuted? Could it be that her indictment would result in "social unrest"? Inquiring minds want to know.

@ Brodhead's creation of the Culture Initiative. Will that result in a better campus for blacks or whites?

@ MSM's response to case illustrates how successful blacks have been in couching themselves as victims. Is that good for "integration"?

@ At its most elemental level, the hoax was about black-on-white crime, which is prevalent not only in the US, but in Europe. Can integration be successful in societies where such crime is commonplace?

@ Anybody wonder why the Gang won't be punished? Could it be that white society places fewer sanctions on antisocial black behavior, and is therefore afraid of meting out any justice for the falsely accused innocents?

@ Are affirmative action and other preferential policies a way to promote a harmonious society?

@ Would Michael Nifong railroad 3 innocents in an all-white town given the same circumstances that obtained 1 year ago? We have to begin to pose such questions.

@ Is the price of "integration" risking your sons' intellectual, moral, and physical well-being?


Is that an equation everyone can live with?

Anonymous said...

I love it!

I love it!

These people must be trying out at Duke's diversity camp.


I think I'm going nuts...right at this very moment! ROTFLM-T's-O !!!


Anonymous said...

rod allison, detroit 12:20

Exactly right. Buffer, cut-out, and sacrficial lamb if needed. Plus if they pick the right person, it will add 1 to all the numbers proving how diverse they are.

Uh, could somebody tell me exactly what Brodhead does? Burness is his mouthpiece, he has a Vice President or Dean for every imaginable thing. I guess he is the buffer, cut-out, and sacrificial lamb (if needed) for Bob Steel (sic) and the BOT.

Anonymous said...

TO 3:54PM--

Here's a little refresher trivia course: :>)

LIS = laughing inside

GIS = giggling inside

GOL = giggling out loud.....just a break from the proverbial LOL!

And ROTFLM-T's-O !!! anything you want it to be.


One Spook said...

Debra writes:

"LIS" ... "GIS" ... I think I'm going nuts...right at this very moment! ROTFLM-T's-O !!!

FINALLY!!! The LIS and GIS were much too bland, and since none of us can accompany you to the Chapel Hill Tennis Club and admire your nicely rounded bottom, most unlike Lee Smith's whitebread, dreaded flat ass, the VERY LEAST you can do is give us an occasional "ROTFLM-T's-O."

BTW ... is the Diva cat friends with Clayton ?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

"You suppose this diversity position is Duke's response to part of the settlement with Finnerty et al?"

Now there's an interesting theory. But I can't think of a explaination for it that makes sense. You have any ideas?

Anonymous said...

In searching for the difference between today's students and the student's of the past, our contemporaries seem more compliant, and possibly more practical.

In any case, I wish someone would interview a cross-section of current Duke students to determine their thoughts and feelings concerning their University's administration.

Because from where I'm sitting, Duke appears to be a cesspool of filth and rot.

Anonymous said...

TO Spook--

Ha, ha!

I don't even go there anymore. For all I know it might have been razed by now for new development.

I now live outside the city limits......still CH, though.

Sad news recently that an acquaintance who lived in that tennis club neighborhood and who was a rare book dealer died a few months ago while on a buying trip in NYC.

His wife was on her way to her mother's funeral in Boston as he was dying of an apparent heart attack in a NY hotel room. Bad karma.

He was only in his early 50's.

Big Hal and his wife Smith have since planted themselves in a rural Hillsborough Gurganus.

That club probably has a new crop of flat behinds by now....if it's still in existence.



Anonymous said...

All the more reason to use the shameful record of the Duke 88 to open the faculty selection process to an elected board of regents with a veto power. In the case of private universities, perhaps by alumni or paying parents.

The insulation of faculty and administration positions from wider review is a disgrace.

The inability of a campus to expel one posturing blowhard from the University of Colorado w/o an expensive year-long proceeding and payments of $100,000 in severance pay is just absurd.

There is nothing wrong with true diversity: poor kids, disadvantaged kids, whatever.
But the Duke 88 and its allies don't believe in diversity: like Jacobins in the french revolution they want a continually purified group of people that think and act like they do. Nonbelievers must be expelled. Athletics eliminated. Dissenters ostracized.

Several states require judges--even ones on their supreme court--to be "affirmed" by the voters every 10 years or so. Its a reality check on the judges. It prevents "imperial judiciary" syndrome at its worst.

In California in 1986 it led--for the first time in anyone's memory--and the last time since then--to the defeat of 3 justices who refused to affirm any of 70 straight death penalty cases on some flimsy pretext.

If judges can be "ratified" every 10 years why not faculty? Why not administrators?

Allowing professors to become embedded beyond the reach of the public or paying parents and alumni, like bugs in amber, is a national disgrace.

Worse, as this blog has pointed out, the beachhead given to one or more pseudo intellectuals is sued to pack the departments with obliging clones.

As the Dartmouth elections show, once entranched, the administrators hired and appointed to "appease" the Fish/post-modernists/etc. are those on a mission having nothing to do with traditional education.

Public accountability at all levels must be restored to the state universities.

Enough after the fact criticism of the Duke 88: enough patting each other on the back for not being one of the 88; time for constructive action. To dilute them and prevent this from worsening in universities nationwide.

Anonymous said...

One Spook.

Thanks for that link to the 'Harvard’s Diversity Grovel' article. Great read.

Anonymous said...

The Duke case was always about votes and election. Trying to make sense of the events,outside of this fact,is impossible. This case was never about rape.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:31

"All this talk of self actualizing in University is a laugh. I spent over a half a million dollars on my kids educations in the great schools of the East and Mid West- up to and including a PHD. Going to school is about getting a marketable skill - earning a living, if you will. they went to the best school they could get into. Never once, did I review the courses they took. If an eighteen plus can not figure that out on their own, they do not belong in higher education. Duke will do just fine."

This thread is mostly about fairness and decency, not self-actualization. Most 18 year olds are still vulnerable, yesterday's professor Ho is a victim of a university department that basically brainwashed her. She followed the party line, did her work well, as she saw it, was rewarded and then, all of a sudden, WTF happened? If you think Duke is just fine, you may wish to check with an ex-lacrosse coach and 3 ex-lacrosse players about their experiences at Duke.

BTW, if you are not a phony you sure sound like one.

Anonymous said...

I'm a career teacher of English, and after reading the job description, I have only one question: What, exactly, does the person in this position do?
I understand that making flashy Powerpoint presentions is a large part of the job, and no doubt, being able to sit for long periods, your face framed in rapture, while academic bores drone on and on is also part of the job, but what I'm not seeing is what the responsibilities and authorities involved would be.

The job description seems to leave another related and significant question unanswered: just what will this person do to fill five 8-hour days each week? Of course, my apparent lack of understanding may be indicative of my utter unsuitability for this vital position. During my job interview, I'd no doubt say something like "...but if a given faculty member is competent and professional, what difference does their cultural, sexual, or gender orientation make?" See what I mean? I'm obviously not Duke material.

Anonymous said...

ubg 5:23

Here is the other Larry Summers article. I really really don't understand how Hopkins et al. get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Why do we bother to use the term "diversity" since "good" and "bad" "diversity" are both pseudoconcepts? After all, the word diversity is an amorphous term; it means nothing, EXCEPT AS CODE. We're living in a repressed culture that tolerates such nonsense.

Remember, the left hijacked this word when "quotas" and "affirmative action" became anathema to polite society.

So Duke's diversity commisar is nothing more than a QUOTA NEGOTIATOR/ENABLER. The nature of the position is pure BS. Is there a polite way of telling someone they're stupid? But to a Quota Believer, that question will never pop up because there is no such thing as quality or merit.

Reread the source material Professor Johnson cites; then substitute "Quota ENABLER" for "diversity officer."

Words often lie. People who use the term "diversity" always lie.

True Believers--does that sound like a benediction or an obituary?

Anonymous said...

---------OFFICE MEMO---------

TO: Pres. Broadhead's Spine
FROM: Duke D&E Officer
DATE: September 15, 2007
RE: Diversity!

As you suggested, I met with all the departments, the professional schools, the athletic teams and the housing units and developed a comprehensive diversity achievement model for your approval. Here are my suggestions:

1. Too many 6 & 7-footers on the basketball team. We need smaller players!

2. Our Lacrosse teams only include people who play lacrosse. Penis!

3. Way too many smart people in the economics and math departments. (Need to thin that herd)!

4. Too many humans at Duke University; not enough other species (except the counting horse and members of the "dissected" species).

5. Way too many women on the women's volleball team.

6. Not enough dates for the ugly or socially awkward. How will they reproduce! Diversity is a smile on a sunny day!

7. Need thinner people on the football team. And people who aren't always spitting or scratching themselves. Ewwww! The Diversity Rainbow is made of many colors!

As you suggested, I started my campus-wide survey by giving foot rubs to Lubiano and Holloway. Good call! I look forward to your response.


----------OFFICE MEMO-----------

TO: Duke D&E Officer
FROM: Pres. Brodhead's Spine
DATE: September 18, 2007
RE: Diversity!

I don't think you understand: You are to diversify based upon skin color and what the person either sticks his penis into or puts into her vagina. That is all.


Are we sure Polanski didn't post this "Duke Bulletin." It seems so ridiculous, especially coming at this time, that it might be a parody itself. On another note, Anons. @ 3:54, 4:30, Debrah and One Spook are on FIRE!

Diversity calculation: For every K.C. Johnson there MUST be 88 talentless hacks to balance out the equation. It's only math! MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Dear all,

Last night, I attended the Polo matches at Great Meadow, Fauquier County, Virginia.

As it turned out, I met someone who represented (in a professional capacity) the Board of Trustees in the Duke Lacroose Burning.

She was appropriately quiet and did not disclose the nature of her representation. Nor did she disclose the judgement of the BOT.

Totally appropriate.

But what I did glean is this: The BOT no longer believes that they have a public relations issue, for their PR counsel has moved on to other issues.

So...the question is ... how does one turn up the heat?


Anonymous said...

There was a study about job discrimination in the news recently where the word "diverse" meant anything but a straight, white male under 50. Here are the frist few paragraphs:

CHICAGO and TROY, Mich., June 19 /PRNewswire/ -- and Kelly Services released the results of a new study, conducted by Harris Interactive, of diverse workers and non-diverse workers across the country. The purpose of the study was to gauge the frequency, severity and occasion for perceptions of discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace, whether employee diversity is valued and how diversity impacts hiring decisions, compensation and career advancement. While the list of factors that makes one diverse is wide-ranging, this study focused primarily on workers in seven groups: 1) African American 2) Hispanic 3) Asian 4) Female 5) Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) 6) Individuals with disabilities and 7) Mature workers age 50 or older.

Incidence of Discrimination or Unfair Treatment in the Workplace

Twenty-three percent of diverse workers said they have been discriminated against or treated unfairly in the workplace based on their diverse background. Individuals with disabilities reported the highest incidence at 44 percent of workers while Asian workers and mature workers reported the lowest incidence at 21 percent each. The other diverse groups in this study averaged 28 percent (African American 30 percent; Hispanic 29 percent; Female 25 percent; and GLBT 28 percent).

Discrimination was not limited to those who classified themselves as diverse. Fifteen percent of non-diverse workers (defined as Caucasian males who are not GLBT, disabled or age 50 or older) said they felt discriminated against or treated unfairly in their workplace based on their non-diverse background.

The full article is here:

So there are actually "diverse" people and "non-diverse" people.

By this definition, a campus or workplace without straight white men is totally diverse.

So what exactly are the non-diverse - the straight white males under 50 - supposed to think when they hear people say "commited to diversity," "strive for diversity," celebrate diversity," and so on?

Anonymous said...

KC, your blog has moved firmly from doing good (exposing Nifong) to borderline racist incitement. You have no evidence at all what the diversity officer will do or won't do--nor do you have any evidence that the many different voices among the 88 faculty who signed the original Chronicle ad do not and have not reached out to white and male students as well as non-white and female students.

It seems that the way you operate is the following: you post something that complains about anyone who attempts to think about race, class, and gender with regards to the university, then you say, 'of course, they're within their rights' to do whatever it is they're trying to do. Then you sit back and let the commentators on your blog sling explicitly racist and sexist remarks (witness your posting a fake response from the UNC professor and sitting back and letting your readers make fun of her name, scholarship, her being female, etc.).

Your game has a name. It's called demagogory.

You're not interested in the injustices of a rogue prosecutor. You are continuing your fight against women and minorities.

Anonymous said...

what SHE will do...and i underscore WOMAN, is meet with the group of 88 over a 22 week period...then re meet with the group of 88, and then re meeet with the group of 88...and file a report that is approved by the group of 88

then duke will develop a POLICY that only 5% of the new admissions can be straight white men from america...

75% will be foreign born activists that support african dictators, south and latin american dictators, russian dictators, and be card carrying members of the ACLU or equivalent organization that have a goal of undermining american culture of winning

duke will then be able to claim its the most diverse, but the most confused and unloyal university to its alumni in the world

as we saw with michal vik, the first comment was, make sure we dont duke michael vik

but when will the alumni duke broadrot and the steeldrum board of directors

duke Duke's arrogance

Anonymous said...


Thanks for that link to the George F Will article but I have seen it before.

It contains a paragraph mocking feminism that made me burst out laughing because it was so accurate:

"Is this the fruit of feminism? A woman at the peak of the academic pyramid becomes theatrically flurried by an unwelcome idea and, like a Victorian maiden exposed to male coarseness, suffers the vapors and collapses on the drawing room carpet in a heap of crinolines until revived by smelling salts and the offending brute's contrition?"

Now that's what I call good journalism.

Anonymous said...

5:31 You know nothing about Professor Ho and her life experiences. Coach, Colin and Reade did not have the best experience. David, of course, who planned the party graduated and missed a lot of the "bad" stuff. I would quess his experiences at Duke were great until his decision making came back to haunt him. Most of the Duke Alumni and present students appear to like the school and their experiences.
What is to be phony? Treating 18 plus as adults can't be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Job sharing -- Nifong and Polanski.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 6.39:

Many thanks for your concession that the blog did good work against Nifong.

Of course, if the Group of 88 had focused on upholding the academy's traditional fidelity to due process rather than choosing to advance their personal, pedagogical, or ideological agendas on the backs of their own students, there never would have been a need for this blog.

As to the allegation of my "sitting back": the commenter who allegedly impersonated Prof. Ho was banned from the blog, I instituted comment moderation to ensure that he did not return, and I am in the process of removing all comments posted by the individual, since I can only assume that all of his comments were lacking integrity. (It seems that the commenter did not also hack into Prof. Ho's blogger account to the original post, which Prof. Ho has stood behind.) As to comments as a whole: I agree with some comments, I disagree with others, but I do not censor comments based on the commenters' point of view. It appears as if you would prefer that I do so. But I am a believer in the marketplace of ideas--a point of view that seems in short supply among the Group of 88.

kcjohnson9 said...

A follow up comment to the 6.39:

I just re-read the post. It makes absolutely no claims to "know" what the diversity officer will or will not do. It does lay out what the diversity officer should do if the officer were to implement the wording of the job description faithfully. And I express "doubt" that the officer will run a seminar for the department that sponsored the Group of 88 ad reminding its members on the need to respect all students.

I would be delighted if my doubts about the latter issue are proved unfounded. But, as I said in my post, I'm not holding my breath on that matter, based on the conduct we have seen over the past 17 months.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 6.20:

I am dubious that anything can be done to "turn up the heat." This is an administration which is firmly committed to its policies and has shown no signs of a willingness to engage in any critical self-reflection.

It seems to me that the only appropriate course is to ensure that Duke's policies and behavior are documented, so that parents can make informed choices.

Anonymous said...

"...continuing your fight against women and minorities." Hmmm. Having read this blog for some months now, I can't say that it has ever crossed my mind that its purpose (or its actual application) was remotely related to harming women and minorities, unless of course, those women and minorities were witless, malicious race-baiters willing to wrongfully imprison three Lacrosse players for the sins of being white, male and relatively financially well off.

Perhaps this particular "anonymous" merely wishes to establish another category of victims: the reality challenged. I'm sure the gang of 88 and the Duke administration would approve.

Anonymous said...

I would have no interest in sending a student to Durham. You are so right KC. Duke is not going to change. I do think that there will be no more "Listening statements." I would think Steele himself, has spoken to the 88 personaly, about these issues. In the end, it is their school and they are free to run it anyway they want.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for all you have done (and it is considerable). Not only have you truly been a force in helping 3 young men reclaim their future, you have shined a light on the corrupt ideology of much of academia.

We look forward to your book and wish you well on your upcoming travels.

D White 1973

Anonymous said...


You are free to engage us all you want on this board, and you can post your disagreement anytime.

But if you want it to be a meaningful discussion, you will have to do a better job than merely saying "borderline racist" or "your fight against women and minorities."

Save that for the faculty lounge.

Those are cliches, they don't mean anything, and they don't work. We don't accept baseless charges on their face, and we don't recognize anyone's moral superiority. We are interested in ideas.

Anonymous said...

KC - That you're willing to deal with commenters on top of everything else you're doing is sort of amazing, considering some read as if written by folks who aren't really interested in adult discussion.

Another thing I keep thinking while following your blog is that I now see that the academic rot started back in the 60's when I was a student (class of '71). Wallace Fowlie was a professor of French and usually very mild mannered. The most upset I ever saw him was when students "shut down" the university for political reasons. He was dismayed that contemporary political issues were contaminating the deeper, centuries old, cultural mission of the university, and that we students didn't even seem to realize what we were discarding. At the time I thought him quaint, but now see him as prophetic. The modern academic seems to feel that deeper mission contaminates their political goals.

Anonymous said...

I actually think that its important for duke to have this position. They actually need an army of these types of people to find enough blacks who are even 1/2 qualified to make it into duke. what do you mean "what will this person do"? its obvious, they'll scour the country looking for the handful of blacks and latinos who are almost qualified enought to get in.

my question is what it th equity business?


Anonymous said...

No, KC, in fact you aren't interested in a marketplace of ideas. This blog and its comments have long since turned into an echo chamber. The worst intimations of your posts are picked up on and amplified. You have never -- NOT ONCE -- repudiated the sexist and racist comments that have been made time and time again. It has long since been clear that you are, in fact, blind to your own investments in a caricature of progressive academics. The people that you drag into your spot-light are always marginal academics rather than folks who have had long careers with stellar pedigrees. You want to make a genetic argument: if one believes X about race/gender/class then one must believe Y about the false Duke rape allegation. You seem to think that the 88 individuals who signed the listening statement all have the same agenda, do the same research, and even disagree with you on every point about the prosecutorial misconduct. (In fact, they don't.) But instead of a nuanced reading of a complicated event, you prefer something that can only be called academic red-baiting. Then after naming an individual, you let your posters do the rest: the people on this blogs call folks at home, write them hateful, racist emails, and they harass them.

THIS is why you "took Ho at her word" even though you seem to have direct evidence that someone else wrote that laughably painful parody of a "femnist" professor. You were all too willing--JUST LIKE YOUR SO-CALLED GANG OF 88--to believe the worst of others.

What you did at the beginning was laudable--what this has degenerated into is laughable if it weren't so corrosive.

What you have re-invented through blogging is red-baiting, KC, and it needs to be stopped.

Anonymous said...

Dear AF,

If a white, straight male applied for the job and didn't get it, could he file an EEOC complaint? I'm not a lawyer, but there can not be discrimination based on ANY race or gender. In New Orleans, a new black elected official tried to fire all the whites, saying he wanted blacks working for him. He lost the case.

Just a thought, but the qualifications are so low, many straight white men could apply, then file suit. Any thoughts if this could turn up the heat?


Anonymous said...

TO Gregory--

You have outdone yourself today.

Especially magnificent was the Book Club post. LOL!

I am waiting with bated breath......pores glistening with expectant desire.......heart pounding with anticipation.....for KC's next Midnght Hour 88 profile.

Can I handle the mystery?


Anonymous said...

This is to a certain extent out of context, but I thought I'd offer it nonetheless.

I was greatly disturbed by the Jennfer Ho "forgery posting." I can deal with all sorts of attitudes and opinions. I can deal with extreme opinions along any length of the political or emotion or intellectaul spectrum.

But, I cannot tolerate dishonesty. I can tolerate an honest opinion that is very much at odds with my understanding of facts and my beliefs. For such an opinion can form the basis for a debate with integrity.

But when someone subverts the investigation of fact and the formation of opinion using deceit...

...well, that is not tolerable.

Frankly, I feel that I was taken in by someone who gave every indication of a well-considered opinion.

I believe I was duped.

The silver lining of this dark clould is that dishonesty and deceit and illusions feigning reality are eventually disclosed and discovered for what they are.

But, I am advised to be aware that all that appears true, may in fact be a falsehood supported by an agenda.

The analogy to the Duke Lacrosse Burning is apparent.

Thomas S. Inman '74

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 9.55:

It's intriguing that you term a host of tenured Duke professors "marginal academics." That statement would be as strong an indictment of the Duke personnel process as anything I have offered.

The claim that I have "never--NOT ONCE" repudiated sexist and racist comments is absurd. I have deleted dozens of comments that I considered vile, many of which were from the since-banned commenter; I have done several announcement posts indicating that I would not tolerate vile comments; and I have asked any reader who encountered vile comments to e-mail me so I could remove them.

I welcome the backhanded praise of the blog's initial work. Ironically, such praise of the blog's critique of Nifong by sympathizers with the Group of 88 seemed to be in very short supply while the case was still going on. I wonder why that was . . .

Finally, as to the attacks against me: I tend to think that ad hominem attacks indicate weakness rather than strength of an argument.

kcjohnson9 said...

To Inman, 10.08:

I echo your comments completely.

Anonymous said...

Well 9:55, we would comment on your blog if you hadn't restricted it to invited guest only. Some "marketplace of ideas".

Show us the evil emails. Oh wait, you can't because you told K.C. that he couldn't qoute yours.I'm sure you adhere to the same standards when someone sends you an email.

Anonymous said...

I am particulary intrigued with the words of 9:55:

"Then after naming an individual, you let your posters do the rest: the people on this blogs call folks at home, write them hateful, racist emails, and they harass them."

Excuse me, but to the best of my knowledge and belief, I am not aware of anyone that "call folks at home, write them hateful, racist emails, and they harass them."

If anyone is doing this, then provide the facts and evidence and let all decide if it is worthy of calumny.


9:55 again:

"THIS is why you "took Ho at her word" even though you seem to have direct evidence that someone else wrote that laughably painful parody of a "femnist" professor. You were all too willing--JUST LIKE YOUR SO-CALLED GANG OF 88--to believe the worst of others."


I, for one, like to assume the best in people. And a consequence of that attitude is that I assume that what I read or hear has integrity. I listen and I evaluate what I read for dissonance and falsehood, but I do not assume dishonesty and deceit. Yes, perhaps I am naive, but I am confident that truth bubbles to the surface.

That, in fact, is what happened. And I for one tender an apology to Jennifer Ho for my misplaced opininon and judgement. But, with that said, I would welcome her learned and heartfelt addition to the debate. For, if her opinion supported by fact is of sufficient weight, then I will honor and respect that position, fact...may adopt it as my own.

Anonymous said...

TO 9:55PM--

Dear, dear disgruntled poster--

Please refrain from using the fraudulence of a visitor to this blog as your debating tool.

All of us are well aware of the intricate aspects of this case. The reality of the travesty and the injustice perpetrated on three young men will never be eclipsed by your feverish little act.

Jennifer Ho is a non-entity here...except for her embarrassing scribblings and her falsehoods which she presented as facts about three innocent men.

IMO, the poster who used her name to make a joke of Ho's less-than-stellar scholarship actually did her a favor....which makes me angry.

The ignorant display such as Jen-Ho exhibited with her lacrosse case commentary should be held up for what it is---rambling and cartoonish idiocy....cheapening the tribulations of women who really are raped.

The fraudulent poster who signed her name to a post has given this obscure Jennifer Ho woman a platform to do a victim dance.

Forget it! No one here is wasting energy with this sick act. Perhaps this will give the Mangum-enabling Ms. Ho an opportunity to actually learn the facts about this case before she attempts to display her doiley-laden scribblings.

Don't even think about using that victim act here....and don't even think about trying to make Ho a victim of anything but her own stupidity---Duke Gang of 88 style.


Anonymous said...

It gets worse as time wears on. The place is beginning to make me sick. Where the hell is the bot?????


Gary Packwood said...

rod allison, detroit 4:07 said...

..."You suppose this diversity position is Duke's response to part of the settlement with Finnerty et al?"
...Now there's an interesting theory. But I can't think of a explanation for it that makes sense. You have any ideas?
This morning I remembered Duke responded to the campus unrest by encouraging professors to visit sports teams and even travel with the team to an off campus competition.

That would be a type of diversity education for the faculty/staff.

That seemed like a good idea to me and I could imagine that the defense team and their clients also thought the idea of actually talking WITH athletes was a good exercise in diversity for faculty/staff.

To move from 'good idea' to formalizing such diversity 'training' as part of the settlement seemed to me like something the defense team might recommend.

And, I could also imagine the HORSE (talking with athletes) becoming the CAMEL (position of Director of Diversity and Equity) in the Duke administrative sausage machine.

The Defense team recommends a Horse and Duke gave them...a Camel.

Another inside joke on male athletes (from the North).

Anonymous said...

Saying that you are academic red-baiting is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem attack. I know nothing about you, outside of the mania you have for beating this particular drum. And, importantly, you have not responded to my central charge, KC: you think that having one set of positions on academic or philosophical concerns about race/class/gender/sexuality can tell you something--anything--about what one would say about the travesty of what happened on Buchanan and vice versa. If you think, for example, that knowing that a scholar incorporates queer theory into his or her work will tell you anything about their understanding of that evening, then you are ignorant of the devestating critiques of identity politics from that sector of academia that would support many of the sentiments about individualism that you and some of your posters seem to be concerned with defending. Moreover, my comments about marginal academics was not, in fact, necessarily refering to folks who were only associate professors versus full professors or named chairs. Note you don't try to describe, say, Alex Rosenberg's philosophical research and then say there is a necessary position about sex/race/class. Nor have you done a hatchet job explanation of any other prominent scholar. The scholars who you do focus your sights on--for example Pete Sigal--seem to work in academic traditions such as psychoanalytic criticism that is easy enough to make fun of. (He said "phallus"! Hehehehe! ... instead of noting that Mayans wore representations of phalluses, much like cod pieces, that were in fact symbolic.) Again, serious discussion of the merits of a scholar's research gives way to turn on full-force sarcasm and glib glosses of work, then letting the commentors mock and harass the people you put under your microscope.

And deleting comments is NOT a repudiation of the racist 'jokes' about Ho's name, or any of the other examples out of hundreds and hundreds of comments that you have let stand since you started this blog. You let those sit and fester, which in turn egg on other posters to one-up each other. Have you ever asked yourself why your amen corner sounds the way it does, KC? Have you ever asked yourself why this late-game following takes on the tone of hate and mocking that it does? Have you ever asked how you contribute to it and in turn allow this envirnoment to confirm a cartoonish version of very complicated working environment such as Duke? Have you ever asked yourself how, in fact, your blog contributes to fear of even discussing what happened at Duke since if someone doesn't tow your line then they are going to get a full-force nozzle worth of Durham-in-Wonderland hate mail, phone calls, and threats to their employers that the terms of their research are destroying the university?

How, in fact, can you claim any intellectual integrity at all? I think you lost any claim to it when you moved away from the real and justified anger around defending the three men from Nifong to your hobby-horse of the so-called degeneration of the modern academy.

You aren't a reporter, KC. And in this case, you are not a scholar and an academic. You are the worst version of a pundit. But more than that. You are part of the story, and at this point you are long past doing good. Instead you are acting as an engine of ill-will, anger, hatred, and acrimony. As far as I can tell, that's what you want.

If so? Shame. If not? Then act the scholar and intellectual--not the yellow journalistic red-baiter. I don't know how you could turn it around, though. The damage has been done, and continues to be done, and as far as I can tell given your posts, you want that damage to be long-lasting. You claim to care for Duke and its students? You castigate its faculty for not caring for its students? No--what you want is to create an environment at Duke and elsewhere (now at UNC??!) so that faculty are singled out, yes, for who they are and the types of problems that they engage, without a critical and sober examination of that engagement.


Really. Enough.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 9:55 writes:
Then after naming an individual, you let your posters do the rest: the people on this blogs call folks at home, write them hateful, racist emails, and they harass them."

My, my, my ... you seem to be pretty conversant with what the Gang of 88 thinks, knows, studies, and feels. And how nice of you to come riding in on your white horse to the aid of Ms Ho who apparently is not capable of defending herself.

Where have you been? Have you been waiting in the wings just hoping some unfortunate incident like the fake posting would happen so you could spring into action?

Rest assured that most of us here were quite disturbed about the fake posting ... the problem was corrected and life goes on. Unfortunately, the free marketplace of ideas includes the unscrupulous, and the format of internet forums can be susceptible to that type of treachery.

If you have examples of harassing e-mails directed at individuals mentioned here, please share those.

In my life, I have been interviewed by NBC Nightly News, on NPR, and quoted in the New York Times, the Wall Street journal and in other media, foreign and domestic.

I've been called, mailed and e-mailed by strangers many, many times. I've been jeered and booed in public speaking settings on occasion.

Not once have I ever walked away from a debate, or have I ever sought to spend my life in the company of those with whom I always agree. JP Wrigley once said that "Whenever any two persons in the same organization always agree on everything, one of them is unneccessary."

Maybe having played "helmet sports" and having a military drill officer yell in my ear has helped me withstand these awful horrors of defending a point of view; I do not know.

I do know this. The gang of 88 and their ilk have neither apologized for their gross misconduct nor have they, despite their phony call for "dialogue," been willing to debate their views in proper discourse.

And for those reasons, they are intellectual and moral cowards,and a disgrace to the academy.

One Spook

Anonymous said...


This person starts with a misrepresentaiton and proceeds form "truth to truth" in stating the "truth" of their argument. It is also true that the lacrosse and the lacrosse team members, so falsely accused, are innocent. What is not so innocent is the agenda driven dictims of the Duke Group88 and their outrageous scholarship . . . a scholarship I might add . . . bereft of common sense. It is rascist and for the purpose of rascism. It is gender driven and was at the heart of the Duke Group88's inability to understand or rationalize what was happening to their students. The mainstream media, trained by the likes of these academics, lacked the commonsense, experience, insight, and just plain journalistic skills to investigate what actually happened or was happening in Durham. Diversity has been reduced by these bigots to "white man bad" everyone else good. It is a fraud period and nothing manifest itself more than this horrific rush to judgement on the part of academic hustlers and the media, in fact, the media trained by the likes of the Duke Group88 has become a media driven by the "cutting edge" of this shallow, puerile, adolescent journalism. It is the Jayson Blair syndrome run wild. It is not the common sense experienced reasoning of an Edward R. Murrow or anyone else of another era. The NYT can't even interpret the world well enough to allow its publc to protect themselves.

Anonymous said...

For all who come here in an effort to divert attention from the reality of this case, your efforts have already failed.

The overreaching.....the self-serving audacity......the purposeful lies......the hideous mentalities of enablers who would try to destroy lives....the sheer malignancy of such scholarship.....

......are all documented here.

Much more horrific illumination of these diabolical people will be on display for all to see when the book arrives.

There will be no one else to lie to.

The book will serve as a reference in every law school in the country through the ages.

No one will catch KC:



Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:55 said...
No, KC, in fact you aren't interested in a marketplace of ideas. This blog and its comments have long since turned into an echo chamber.

Kind of hard to criticize the sameness of the postings on this blog: after all, this blog documents the incredible depressing, maddening sameness of the claims of those who still will not admit that this hoax is a maggoty, decomposing corpse. It's like some horrible game of whack-a-mole: again and again these academic/journalist/activist deniers pop up, insisting that the LAX accused were not found innocent-whack! That they used racial epithets-whack! That poor, hardworking Mangum's myriad stories held together-whack! That poor, noble Nifong was persecuted-whack! That black women are often preyed upon by whites-whack! That the 88 were not rushing to judgment or condoning injustice-whack! whack! whack!

If you people want to hear a new song, for God's sakes start singing one yourselves. Any rational human would look for the reasons behind such astonishing, illogical and foolish intransigence; it is not strange at all that we suspect it is connected with the deniers' social agendas. It's great to criticize Nifong, but not those who stood this malicious idiot up and crowned him king? Who bent every rule of decency to gave his disgusting efforts the veneer of intellectual worth? Who continue to do so? No: sorry.

One Spook said...


Midnight Rider

GREAT song ... dreadful live performance!

One Spook

Gary Packwood said...

Inman 6:20 said...

...Dear all,
..So...the question is ... how does one turn up the heat?
Lyle Sanford 9:00 observed that the “modern academic seems to feel that deeper mission contaminates their political goals.”

Eventually parents and scholars will turn up the heat if the infractions spelled out by Lyle Sanford are documented and reduced to writing or on U-Tube as Debrah has noted.

Anonymous said...

9:55 and 10:58- It's really hard to take you very seriously when you comment anonymously when all the regulars here very quickly figured out who and what you are.

Once again, lets see the emails. I've heard those lies from the 88 forever and not one sinle email has ever been produced.

As to the critisim of you and your fellow fake academicians and your work place environment. Pleaseeee. Those of us that do not work in the fairy tale land of a college campus have our ideas and work constantly reviewed and judged.

Is 9:55/10:58 a "red"? Sure looks like it!

Good work K.C., another mental cripple dashed upon the rocks as they weakly attempt to defend their agenda. most of them are smart enuf not to respond.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 10.58:

My apologies for not recognizing that calling someone an "academic red-baiter" is a "statement of fact" rather than an "ad hominem attack." I suspect, however, that most people would disagree with your characterization.

I see now that you also have retreated from your claim that I never repudiated sexist or racist remarks to a suggestion that I did not repudiate them in a way that you preferred.

I would urge you to look at the subtitle of this blog: "comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case." Of the more than 900 posts that I have done, I have been commenting on the Duke side of the case from the start: indeed, the decision of 88 members of the Duke faculty to sign a denunciatory statement was the reason I started blogging on the case, and my initial posts on the case were exclusively about the faculty reaction. The balance between the academic and legal posts has remained largely constant in each month of the blog's existence.

Re Alex Rosenberg, in a July 2006 post I noted the following: "Ironically, the most extreme manifestation of groupthink has come from one of the few Group of 88 members whose research eschews race/class/gender issues. Philosophy's Alex Rosenberg is the only signatory to have had Reade Seligmann in class. I e-mailed Rosenberg, said that I had blogged about the case, and asked whether the fact that he had taught Seligmann altered his perspective on the statement. Channeling the spirit of Ivan Tribble, Rosenberg dignified me with a reply even though, he revealed, in his opinion bloggers are cranks with too much free time on their hands. The sole defenders of the lacrosse players in this case, the professor suggested, are extreme advocates of the economic status quo—a revelation that no doubt will come as news to, among others, Jeralyn Merritt, a liberal trial attorney whose blog has provided the most incisive legal critique of Nifong's behavior. An article from Sunday's Times featured several of Seligmann's high school teachers issuing what could only be termed glowing descriptions of his character; a recent Duke graduate, Katie Fisher, recalled, "When I heard it was Reade, I knew 100 percent in my heart this was a completely false allegation." Rosenberg, instead, recommends the novel public relations strategy of those who know Seligmann remaining silent amidst Nifong’s deceptive publicity barrage. Perhaps the professor might want to offer his services to the second dancer—who remains without representation after being rejected as a client by a New York p.r. firm, to whom she e-mailed, "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."

"Most stunningly, Rosenberg claimed that every member of the Group of 88 believed that Nifong was motivated not by the pursuit of justice but by the looming Democratic primary for D.A. If true, this breathtaking assertion means that the Duke faculty, despite recognizing that a local prosecutor was abusing his office to railroad their own institution's students, chose to go public instead with a mass statement denouncing the students targeted by that very same prosecutor."

I never said that every member of the Group followed a race/class/gender approach to scholarship: I'd urge you to read my postings more carefully.

I haven't noticed many advocates of queer theory or race/class/gender scholarship at Duke among the ranks of the arts and sciences faculty who stood up for either the lacrosse players or for due process in the case. Perhaps such figures published in venues that I don't read, gave interviews to blogs and newspapers I haven't seen, or immersed themselves in Durham activities in ways that escaped the notice of the many people in Durham with whom I speak.

"Have you ever asked yourself how, in fact, your blog contributes to fear of even discussing what happened at Duke since if someone doesn't tow your line then they are going to get a full-force nozzle worth of Durham-in-Wonderland hate mail, phone calls, and threats to their employers that the terms of their research are destroying the university?" To put it mildly, you appear to be assuming facts not in evidence with this statement. I'd urge you to be more careful in your reasoning in future.

Regarding my activities on the blog, I've never claimed to be a reporter, so I would agree with your statement. If you--or others--find my posts intellectually deficient, I welcome your comments. I do not consider critiques of my work to constitute harassment.

And thanks for your advice on when and how to blog. I'm sure that I'll give the advice all the consideration that it deserves.

Anonymous said...

10:58PM opines....with obvious discomfort at having to come to terms with the real world where adults are held accountable: want that damage to be longlasting....

Indeed. Some of us are praying to G/d that it will be.

But you minimize things. The very spine of current academia needs to be broken....then reshaped into a mold of authentic and exquisite scholarship.....put into a cast for healing.....then voila!

Then we might not have university "professors" trying to send innocent students to prison. They will be far too busy actually teaching something.


Anonymous said...

To Spook--

I know. I was disappointed in not being able to find a better rendering of the song.

Love the bluesy tune. Perhaps a better one will surface.

I think Midnight Rider is a better theme song than Midnight Hour......maybe?


Anonymous said...

I'm not sure how the G88 think they are above comment since they post on public blogs and publish works. The reason publications like "Science" and "Nature" exist is to provide peer review. Why publish if no one should comment on your work?

Unfortunately, we do not agree with their premise concerning the Duke case. Disagreement seems unfamiliar to them. This blog is outside of their "bubble" of like-think. Dr. Johnson is not commenting on what some average person says in a conversation that he or she never expected to hear repeated. Dr. Johnson is a true academic, commenting on another academic. Why not? Do they never expect criticism? Guess not, cause he/she sure isn't taking it well.


Mad Hatter said...

re: 10:39

An extremely well-articulated comment and right on target. Bravo, Debrah!

Anonymous said...

Re. 10:58's anonymous attack on KC's integrity:

KC, read everything 10:58 says, imagine the inverse of every line, and that would sum up my view of your blog.

My hope is that you will never stop exposing these charlatans, these warts on the face of academia, until every 88ist is gone from Duke and cannot find employment at any other American university.

Anonymous said...

To: Enough. Really. Enough

can tell you something--anything--about what one would say about the travesty of what happened on Buchanan and vice versa.
The travesty, you say. Was it the racist comments? If so, they were initiated by Ms. Roberts and resonded to, albeit childishly, by a LAX player. Was it the performance? It really wasn't much of one for $800. The girls made some fast money that night and the boys deserved NOT to see a show. Was it the pot-banging? How would they feel if their sons were looking at "Castrate" signs? Those were travesties all right. Which one did you mean?
The damage has been done, and continues to be done, and as far as I can tell given your posts, you want that damage to be long-lasting. You act as though this whole problem was brought on by Professor Johnson, a true scholar. This blog was begun as a direct response to the Klan of 88 Duke employees (to call them academicians is a travesty to those who truly are academicians). Their agendas were obvious and were stated. Maybe some of them were duped into joining into the "rushed" original ad. Otherwise, were their really 88 Duke employees who believed in that ad?
Has the blog taken on a slightly ugly tone. It would seem so. How ironic! A group of bloggers actually has backbone enough to state opinions contrary to those which are politically correct and rationally expedient. Wow!
As for making fun of Professor Ho's name, blame that one on the hip hop culture. Ho was nothing more than a Chinese surname a generation ago. No one called whores Hos back then. Most of that generation don't use the slang term now. The decay of our language is yet another area that has changed, and not for the better.
If it even appeared that Duke and Broadrot were serious about diversity, it might be different. He showed how serious he was by placing Chauncey Nartey on the CCI. Another joke unbefitting a once good institution of higher education. Now it's just another institution.
Time to clear out the administration at Duke and much, if not all, of the faculty. It really isn't fair to some faculty members whose true agenda is the education of students. That's education not indoctrination. Without a drastic change, Duke in 10 years will be barely better off than most community colleges in NC. Duke will just have a prettier campus.
Sad to see it happen.


PS Enough is really enough.

Anonymous said...


Keep those posts coming. Funny how your detractors never wrote letters to the editors of the New York Slimes, the Herald Scum, or any of the other wonderful railroad-type media outlets. They can't take the heat and they don't want to get out of the kitchen. Keep cooking those wonderful, thought-provoking posts.

We appreciate you and will miss you while you are in Israel. Congratulations again on your appointment.


Anonymous said...

10:58 PM --

On the contrary, sir. It is to you I say


Really. Enough.

Anonymous said...

It's not about diversity. That is jst a code name for the "politically correct" agenda. That means it is now in style to be racist, sexist, and anything but rich at Duke.

Diversity stands for the anti-white, anti-Christian,pro welfare, homosexual left-wing agenda. Everybody sees through their sham, but they keep acting like they are fully clothed and in their right minds.

Diversity studies / administration? Pshaw, it's just another name for state-supported bigotry.

Anonymous said...

Midnight Cowboy...


KC has deleted plenty of my comments, and as I have written before, he did the right thing. Do I feel censored - not in the least - what I wrote should have been deleted. You want to spew, start your own blog. But get off KC.

mac said...

Why is it that we still hear no apologies from the 88? (except 1?)
If they had offered a similar "listening statement,"
expressing sorrow for the treatment THEY offered the students,
maybe there'd be no need for
anyof this. However, this apparent
lack of self-evaluation
is testimony to the character of the 87 et al.

They're getting what they deserve.
And a small part of what they did
to the lacrosse players - (not just the three accused.)

Why is it that Duke settled
on both issues of grade retaliation and issues
related to Duke's treatment of Pressler and the young men in question?

Was it racism and sexism that
caused Duke to settle?

Go take a bath.

Anonymous said...

Pop culture warning ... I've just been to the movies....

We've been handed a wonderful metaphor for all the doublespeaking "diversity" faculry and staff: Professor Umbrage.

Anonymous said...

"Then after naming an individual, you let your posters do the rest: the people on this blogs call folks at home, write them hateful, racist emails, and they harass them."

But we don't send people to stand ourside their house banging pots and pans all night, yell death threats at them as they go about their daily business, or give them bad grades or performance reviews just for being who they are. Too bad, they would actually deserve such treatment.

Anonymous said...

re: 9:55's insistence that the going after Nifong part of your blog was worthwhile but going after professors isn't:

He obviously hasn't done his research on your project - the initial lynch mob didn't surprise him, it was seeing professors join it that caught his attention.

This reminds me very much of the folks att the DPD saying "it was all Nifong's fault" and other prosecuors saying "he was an anomaly, we disbarred him, see?"
All are variants on "we punished the scapegoat, nothing to see here, move along." Sorry, not buying it. A fustercluck this major implies *lots* of systemic problems needing attention.

Anonymous said...

"THIS is why you "took Ho at her word" even though you seem to have direct evidence that someone else wrote that laughably painful parody of a "femnist" professor."

I had no such evidence.

I took it as real because nowadays it's impossible to distinguish between laughably painful parody and laughably painful reality.

Anonymous said...

"you think that having one set of positions on academic or philosophical concerns about race/class/gender/sexuality can tell you something--anything--about what one would say about the travesty of what happened on Buchanan and vice versa"

Well, a lot of us outside observers have noticed a pretty strong correlation.

The correlation makes theoretical sense: if you spend your days thinking about everything using an oppressor/oppressed model with strait/white/male/rich always in oppressor role, it will make it much harder for you to notice when it's white males getting oppressed and blacks/women/poor people are doing the oppressing.

Some professors got involved in something important that related to their scholarly interests as they describe themselves describe them, and got it very wrong. That indicates that their scholarship deserves closer examination.

The volume of the squeals generated when their own words are quoted outside an MLA meeting indicates we're onto something.

Anonymous said...

"write them hateful, racist emails"

Remeber, by this guy's definition, saying something like "Affirmative Action harms black students by systematically sending them to colleges where they can't quite keep up," isn't just a disagreement about social policy, it counts as "hateful and racist."

Anonymous said...

Well folks, Ward Churchill is available to take over the Duke Diversity administrator's post. He has the requisite MA degree, in communications, no less. What a wonderful opportunity for Duke.

Seriously, keep up the good work, KC. The more light we can shine on the disgraceful state of some parts of higher education, the better! The fact that many of the faculty resent having public scrutiny of their work suggests that it might not be worth $40,000 per year to get to take the classes they are teaching. On the other hand, I'd say your classes and work would be a bargain at twice that price!

Orson Buggeigh

Anonymous said...

To Anon. @ 9:55 & 10:58:

You have resorted to ad hominem attacks. In just your few posts you have called K.C. a red-baiter, a maniac ("mania for beating this ... drum"), racist, racism-supporter, and yellow journalist.

This proves the weakness of your position. Even hiding behind your curtain of anonymity, you cannot come up with a feeble defense of your ideas.

To my astonishment, however, you have, in fact, proved that K.C. Johnson is 88 times better than any professor in the "Gang." You claim that K.C.'s central thesis is that people with one view about race/class/gender have only one view of the Durham PC fiasco.

Interesting that you drew that conclusion from what K.C. has done. I did too! The difference is that K.C. Johnson just put out the SOURCE MATERIAL. He let everybody draw their own conclusions.

Get it! K.C. Johnson has been teaching, and you've been TAUGHT!

Even you have used the term "marginal academics" - two times - to describe these professors.

Have you ever asked YOURSELF why these professors would rush to harm their own students without any evidence? Have you ever asked YOURSELF why these professors would not apologize for their heinous actions?

My favorite quote of your'n is this, "Have you ever asked yourself how, in fact, your blog contributes to fear of even discussing what happened at Duke since if someone doesn't tow [sic] YOUR LINE [emphasis added] they are going to get a full-force nozzle worth of ... [blah, blah, blah]." This begs the question: What is your line?

1. The Duke boys are guilty?

2. Nifong is innocent?

3. It is righteous for perfessers to ignore the constitutional presumption of innocence?

4. Nobody should challenge the Gang of 88's actions?

5. The Gang of 88 didn't eat their children?

6. The Gang of 88 shouldn't apologize for their lack of integrity and rush to judgment?

Finally, I appreciate the fact that you have been reading from the Book of FRAUDS, ch.7,vs.5: "Then shouteth the Holy 'R' Word at thine enemies ...." That does not work here, as, for the most part - no board can be perfect - the commentators here are colorblind. Try it, it's cool.
There are 88 hours in K.C. Johnson's average workday. He has to travel back in time often to get his work done. BACK TO THE FUTURE IV: THE MCFLY IN THE OINTMENT (2008). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

To Ralph Phelan: We think quite alike! Sorry. I noticed the same quote from our Anonymous friend about K.C. Johnson's "central thesis." You and I drew the same conclusions there (as did our anonymous friend - "marginal academics")!

Also, Professor Umbrage is the best non-fiction character I have read about since Charles Dickens sat at his wordprocessor. (For the very same reasons you observed). Sorry to break this to you!

"Chuck Norris had 3 gun, 2 knives and an army made up of Ninjas and ex-Navy Seals. He had K.C. cold, but some sixth sense told him that this plan would fail like all the rest. At the last second, he called off the surprise attack ...." Entertainment Tonight (Between Lohan reports)(7/29/07). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't that position be entitled "Diversity OR Equity"?

I always chuckle at the corporate email footer which says "Company X is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer..."

Which is it? What about the concept of race-based discrimination overlaps with the concept of equality?

In that spirit, I bring you the following:

Arizona has a climate that can be described as arid desert/rainforest.

Ice cream is extremely fattening/healthy for you.

Doctors think it is good/bad for you to smoke tobacco.

New York City is due North/South from here.

Durham is capable/incompetent at self-governance.

Anonymous said...

10:15 - You are so right. About 4:00AM,I wrote a post that did not come up in an hour or so. I thought "OMG, KC is sleeping" WOW.

Anonymous said...

I am the NBA Player Agent that has posted before. I am white. I represent athletes of all races and levels within the NBA. It is quite obvious by the postings of the "anonymous" poster attacking KC that it is an apologist for the Group of 88 or an actual member. It is a simple thing to admit when one is wrong and much easier to move on from that point that to continue to parrot an indefensible position. These academics were wrong for all the wrong reasons. They presumed guilt without a shred of evidence. They continue to castigate these young men. They have 2 brands of equity and justice: 1 for them and 1 for those that don't agree with their position and typically are white males, a very easy target in today's climate. This is nauseating. I would match my academic credentials against any of the Group of 88 and easily overwhelm them. I have a BS in EE, a Master's in Business from an Ivy League school and a JD from an Ivy League school. I, like the other posters here and KC, am paid what I earn and what I am worth, not based upon some contrived quota that must be met that ignores my qualifications and conduct. For every client I and my firm has, we/I have turned down 2-3 due to their attitude, demeano, conduct and willingness to modify them, where necessary. Good people admit when they are wrong and move on. The Group of 88 can't do this as it is an afront to their stated political position.