A prominent name from the lacrosse case has joined Michael Vick’s defense team. Butch Williams was the subject of a nicely done profile this week by the N&O’s Anne Blythe.
Citing the lessons of the lacrosse case, Williams cautioned against a rush to judgment—while also predicting that the Vick case could be a bigger legal challenge than was tackling Nifong.
Williams was one of the quiet heroes of the case. Setting aside enormous pressure—both from his fellow Durham African-Americans and from taking on the city’s legal power base—Williams did everything he could to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Blythe’s piece provides new details on Williams’ efforts to persuade the local black elite to keep an open mind on the case—even though his client was not one of the people falsely charged. Mayor Bill Bell said that Williams had an effect: “Butch was one of many people who talked to me. He obviously has credibility, and I respect him.” As Bill Cotter noted, "In the very beginning, he told people they better be quite careful, that this might not be what it seemed. I know it caused some problems for him. Some people did not want to hear that."
Bill Cotter summed up the situation*: “Butch’s efforts on the Duke lacrosse case were extraordinary. He’s got a great reputation. He’s credible. He’s very knowledgeable. He has a lot of inside information, and he’s going to tell you what he knows . . If Mike Nifong had listened to him, he still would be the district attorney.”
Vick’s case won’t be an easy one, but in Williams he has a first-rate member of his team.
Writing in the L.A. Times, Gregory Rodriguez used the Ward Churchill case to ask some difficult questions about the nature of the contemporary academy. As Rodriguez noted,
You don’t have to be a crusading right-winger to recognize that University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who compared the victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis, is an extremist, an ideologue whose scholarship is less than objective. The University of Colorado fired Churchill last week—though for massive academic misconduct (a committee concluded that he plagiarized and improperly used sources) rather than his comments.
Rodriguez—correctly, in my opinion—argued that the University should have focused less of its attention on Churchill and more on “how someone as intellectually irresponsible as Churchill got to be head of a department at their esteemed institution in the first place.”
The idea of precise ideological balance in the academy is a bad one, and implementing it would decimate academic freedom. That doesn’t mean, as Rodriguez pointed out, that the public should turn a blind eye to “academia’s nurturance of loons like the hate-filled Churchill. No, they are not many, but they shout louder than their numbers would suggest. And though their influence is minor in American higher education overall, they can be very influential in particular fields, such as comparative literature and gender and ethnic studies. That’s because the problem on campuses isn’t rigorous Marxist materialists, as conservative stereotypes would have you believe, but craven emotional warriors in the arena of identity politics.”
The basic lesson? “Just because an academic field is relatively harmless and even irrelevant (in the eyes of many fellow academics) doesn’t mean that shoddy professors who can’t sort fact from ideology should be tolerated, particularly at taxpayer expense. The Churchill case might be closed, but university officials nationwide have an obligation to bring scrutiny and the ideal of objectivity to these below-par departments—perhaps by dismantling and absorbing them into more rigorous disciplines and insisting, not on any one set of views or conclusions, but on the high standards of scholarship that we expect from the best of academia.”
Of course, few—if any—of those who have followed the lacrosse case would be surprised at the antics of “craven emotional warriors in the arena of identity politics.” We know them as the bulk of the Group of 88.
CUNY law professor Victor Goode contends that the real question of the case is: “Could it be, though, that Nifong's real offense is not misconduct, but rather treating three middle class white defendants as if they were poor and Black?”
Well, in a word, no. If the defendants “were poor and Black,” Nifong would have had no reason to target them politically. Given the yawning gaps in Crystal Mangum’s stories, it’s highly unlikely “poor and Black” suspects ever would have been charged. And it’s unlikely that a case with “poor and Black” suspects would have yielded itself to lines like Goode’s faux lament about “the tawdry events of last year's party, with all its racial and misogynous overtones.”
Yet, according to Goode, “Watching these events unfold, it was hard not to think about the thousands of young Black and Latino men who wind up in the same predicament as these Duke students.”
Let’s remember, again, the misconduct that Nifong committed, based on the results of his ethics trial:
- Nifong, facing a contentious primary election, was trailing badly in the polls. After exclaiming “you know, we’re fucked” when the officers in charge told him of weaknesses in the case, he nonetheless gave between 50 and 70 interviews to the local, state, and national media, in which he expressed absolute certitude that a racially motivated gang rape occurred.
- After the two main officers involved conceded the investigation had reached a “stalemate,” Nifong ordered them to run a third photo lineup, only this time bypassinfg procedures and confining the lineup to suspects.
- Nifong sought the first two indictments without even reading the transcript of that lineup, and overriding police objections that they weren’t sure one of the accused (Reade Seligmann) was even at the party.
- After obtaining the first two indictments, Nifong refused even to meet with lawyers for Seligmann or Dave Evans, even though the attorneys said they possessed evidence to prove their clients’ innocence.
- After learning from a DNA lab director that the DNA of multiple unidentified males was found upon Crystal Mangum, Nifong turned over to the defense a report that didn’t contain this information, and then falsely claimed to two judges that he had turned over all exculpatory evidence.
Who, precisely, are the “thousands” of other defendants whose prosecutors engaged in the behavior outlined above?
According to Goode, “We need not look far for cases where prosecutorial misconduct was far more egregious, but in which poor Black defendants had neither judges nor bar committees acting to guarantee a fair trial.” Goode cited the case of Lesly Jean, who was imprisoned for nearly 20 years after the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and relied on a faulty ID.
What happened to Jean, of course, was horrific. But Goode’s claim that the “prosecutorial misconduct was far more egregious” than in the Nifong case is rather hard to see. Both cases featured the withholding of exculpatory evidence. But, unlike the lacrosse case, the Jean case didn’t involve a prosecutor explicitly instructing the police to violate their own lineup procedures; nor a prosecutor making false and ethically improper public statements before any indictment was made.
Why, according to Goode, did people worry about the lacrosse case? “The very idea of white skin privilege would cease to have meaning if white and Black, rich and poor could actually expect the same treatment by our criminal justice system . . . Not surprisingly, some of the demonstrations on the Duke campus tried to link the prosecution of the Lacrosse players with ‘excesses’ of affirmative action. Others accused Nifong of simply trying to please the Black community of Durham because he needed their vote.”
On the latter point, overwhelming evidence exists that Nifong did exactly that. On Goode’s former claim, where were the “demonstrations on the Duke campus” that linked Nifong’s actions “with ‘excesses’ of affirmative action.” Goode doesn’t say.
In short, those concerned with prosecutorial misconduct against the poor and minorities undermine their case with arguments such as Goode’s, which deliberately minimize Nifong’s misconduct or invent non-existent anti-affirmative action demonstrations.
(It’s unclear, by the way, why Goode capitalizes Black but not white.)
Under the headline of “When prosecutors are corrupt, our democracy pays a stiff price,” the (Tennessee) Mountain Press had an excellent review of the Nifong fiasco.
Unlike Goode’s racialized interpretation of events, the MP editors understood why “the saga of Mike Nifong has been so disturbing”: “Abuse of power is the one thing that can cause a democracy to fail.”
Fortunately, the truth came out:
Now Nifong’s sordid, vicious campaign against innocent young men has been revealed in its totality. He has been disbarred. He faces jail time. He has apologized to the three students. His career in law is over. He may never be able to look at himself and his children with anything but shame and embarrassment.The whole affair, the editors correctly noted, is a reminder that “prosecutors and judges have enormous power in our judicial system,” and that legal integrity is paramount—whether in Durham or in Washington, DC.
Duke donation figures for the 2006-2007 fiscal year are now available: the total rose 11 percent to more than $380 million. Around half of that increase came from a boosted donation from the Duke Endowment.
Most of the donations were targeted to improve need-blind admissions. That said, University presidents are, in the end, evaluated on their fundraising ability, and it certainly can’t be said at this point that Duke alumni were unaware of the administration’s general approach to the lacrosse case or its disinclination to challenge the Group of 88.
In that respect, the Brodhead administration appears to have interpreted alumni sentiment accurately.
“Accountability,” he noted, “finally came to Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong last month,” and now “the time is at hand to demand some accountability for Nifong’s academic enablers.”
As Bellacosa noted,
Eighty-eight members of the Duke faculty publicly promulgated a dreadful letter, enflaming a premature and prejudicial atmosphere against their own students. Yet, their conduct is largely shielded from accountability. Equally troublesome, their ironically and suddenly protective university masters executed a confidential settlement to further immunize the Duke cabal from civil liability exposure.The 88 are thus granted a kind of institutional immunity, a corruption of process all by itself because it sidesteps a day of public reckoning.
As Bellacosa understands, “Their roles as teachers should have included special protection of their pupils from mob hysteria and media hype, not collaboration in the spectacle. These 88 and the rest of the Duke ‘family’ stood in loco parentis - in the place of the parents who entrusted their youngsters to Duke’s professionals, with substantial tuition payments. The parents’ trust was painfully misplaced, and their children suffered irreparable reputation injury and a fundamental breach of duty.”
The former St. John’s Law dean urges Duke students to vote with their feet, shunning “these professors and their courses - a good, old-fashioned revived remedy of accountability. Shunning is, under these circumstances, a proportionate penalty for the sin of heedlessly injuring young people placed in one’s care and charge. These 88 would thus be professionally disenfranchised, and as they look out at empty rooms and seats, that lesson would be felt and take hold.
In the end, according to Bellacosa, the Group “flunked with a capital ‘F’ the course in Principles of Justice 101, whose first lesson is the presumption of innocence and protection of innocents. Everyone should be held ultimately accountable for their actions, even the hostile unintended consequences thereof, lest, in the future, hubristic ideologues, invested with power and fiduciary responsibilities, think that they, too, can act irresponsibly, with impunity and immunity.”
*--corrected from original
I again ask for Brohead's resignation. I refer all to my letter of March 30, 2006 published in the Duke Chronicle. I have never wavered in my resolve. I never changed my view. I was and am focused on the truth.
Brodhead is a political sycophant with no moral resolve. He doesn't know how to state truth.
Thomas S. Inman '74
"... some of the demonstrations on the Duke campus tried to link the prosecution of the Lacrosse players with ‘excesses’ of affirmative action."
Ugh. More imaginary pro-LAX demonstrations, when the reverse was actually the case... and speaking of imaginings, does Goode really imagine that if he places 'excesses' in quotations, those excesses will somehow magically seem like they aren't excesses? Or if he begins by inserting "others accused...", anyone will imagine that what they accused wasn't manifestly the case?
"Others accused Nifong of simply trying to please the Black community of Durham because he needed their vote.”
Oh, damn straight they did, Mr. "Goode". That's just exactly what they accused.
HOW MUCH OF THIS CAME FROM THE board ?
how much of this was from wills OF DEAD DUKE ALUMNI ?
HOW MUCH OF THIS OCCURED BEFORE nifong and the 88 were outed ?
numbers can easily be manipulated
"half of that increase came from a boosted donation from the Duke Endowment" ?
That sounds like donations from alumnis might be down (also excepting a big donation from Melinda Gates) Lets see if thsy can keep this up..
Who are these people who enroll in these G88 courses and write the following instructions just before the big march with the ‘castration’ banner?
"IF YOU ARE A MAN: Please be mindful of the energy you bring and space you
take up in the conversation. Keep in mind that assertion of male domination
and violence, even in a well intended response, is part and parcel of this
They have been around for many years; are bright - usually gifted; shy; not especially competitive in the winner-looser version of competition and they work in teams.
Duke alumni also.
In 1989 they formed The Obey Giant Campaign which attempts to stimulate curiosity and bring people to question both the campaign and their relationship with their surroundings.
Obey Giant (Quality Dissent Since 1989)
That includes questions about topics they know little about and even more questions for those who refuse to answer their questions or try and force them to ...OBEY the teaching system!
There are many web sites that link to the obeygiant.com site (see below) and products are available.
Perhaps you have seen their signs in urban areas in the USA.
The ObeyGiant crowd is young and their numbers are enormous.
Students who appreciate ObeyGiant will be reading our DIW comments and copying any comment that is an ABSOLUTE OPINION without any option for discussion. They will circulate those comments among their friends as factual evidence that the enemy is ever present, persistent and dedicated to MAKING people Obey!
Half of the fun of taking a G88 course is learning how to listen closely to opinions of others and laugh at those who don't listen closely to others and instead...say OBEY ME.
They delight when you try and fit them into a category of liberal, communist or Marxist...especially so if you try and make them OBEY your way of thinking.
They also love to 'trip up' three or four BIG BAD athletes in a classroom who are trying to jam a point through in a classroom discussion.
They invented the phrase 'I'm Confused" and are the group Broadhead is talking about when he talks about engaging ALL students...and building a sense of community.
I enjoy teaching these students as long as I don't have five or six jocks working with five or six sonority chicks trying and dominate the classroom discussion with OBEY type comments and instructions.
The fireworks are spectacular.
How many Duke Alumni give huge sums of money as secret ObeyGiant type supporters.
Welcome to ObeyGiant if the concept is new for you.
OK...so KC's on the road tonight.....and we are left to our own devices.
Many have come to count on Wonderland as an oasis.
Everything from the sublime to the ridiculous has made its way inside these guarded cyber gates.
Engaging reviews of the day-in-the-life of the players in this Hoax appear seriatim.....as KC makes his way into the night.
(Spook will be happy that I found a more artful oblation of this tune....although still not the soulful, bluesy version I am looking for...)
I wonder when the cutoff dates for donations are. The market has been on a tear since last summer. It's definitely had some problems with the subprime and alt-a meltdowns but there might be many alums with big stock gains that decided to contribute to Duke.
Interesting but strangely familiar post.
"That’s because the problem on campuses isn’t rigorous Marxist materialists, as conservative stereotypes would have you believe, but craven emotional warriors in the arena of identity politics.”
As a product of Jesuit education, where Marxism hides behind the curtains, I am one who believes identity politics and American white guilt are simply polymorphic extensions of Marxism onto today's society.
If you subtract the Endowment donation from the last 2 years, is the total still greater than previous years?
I mean the Endowment could just keep boosting their part to make the headlines that donations are up.
This is a very interesting group of articles reviewed.
1. One might argue that Vick case shows prosecutors want the perceived wealthy scalp, black or white. [BTW, Limbaugh one day raised the interesting point that Ray Lewis' "posse" and maybe Lewis was involved in a killing of a human being and yet Lewis did not take the heat that Vick has taken.]
2. Gregory Rodriguez's question certainly applies to the 88 Gangsters and how they ended up at Duke and from the reports here seemingly dominating one college. Of course the growth of donnations to Duke as Prof. Johnson indicates that Duke is what its stakeholders want, I guess?
3. Goode just reveals what he is by his actions from capitalization to selectively decrying prosecutorial abuse.
4. Comparing the Mountain Press article and Gregory Rodriguez's column to Goode and we academics are not coming out looking very good.
I can't help but notice Williams' phrasing about the Vick case. "I will tell you this one will be more difficult than the Duke lacrosse case."
In the Duke case, all of their attorneys immediately and unanimously declared that their clients were innocent. Williams, however, isn't doing that with Vick. Instead he's describing his client's case as 'difficult'. Boy, that doesn't sound good.
Interestingly enough, our old friend Joe Neff wrote about the Jean Lesly case just two months before the Hoax began. It's a shame that no one in the Durham County DA's office seemed to have read it.
Remember, Precious had already accused three previously and the charges had been dropped. Why was that?
I think you are doing us all a wonderful service with this blog. However, I take issue with the way you took issue with the claim that
“Watching these events unfold, it was hard not to think about the thousands of young Black and Latino men who wind up in the same predicament as these Duke students.”
First of all, you have chosen to define "the same predicament" in a way different from that in which Goode is likely to have meant it. I believe that a reasonable interpretation of "the same predicament" is that someone is in danger of going to jail due to misconduct by government workers. From the defendant's standpoint, I don't think it matters whether the government worker who is trying to frame them is a police officer, a prosecutor, or a forensic scientist. I also don't think that from the standpoint of the defendant, it matters much whether the attempt to frame them occurs under the glare of the national media or not. What does matter is whether the attempt to frame them is likely to succeed. And for that purpose, the defendant is likely better off if the media are watching, as this increases the odds that the frame will be discovered.
Nifong's misconduct was unusual in that it was done in the full glare of the national media. Even prosecutors who are willing to ignore their ethical obligations are generally smart enough not to do so when the whole country is watching, and their misdeeds are sure to be discovered.
However, from the defendant's standpoint, their predicament is the same, regardless of whether the media are watching or not. It is the same, in that because of a lying government employee, the defendant is in danger of being convicted of a crime he or she did not commit.
So if we take this definition of "the same predicament", the natural question then becomes "how many?"
For a partial answer, we can turn to the work of the Innocence Project. On their website, they list 205 people whom they claim to have exonerated. Of these, 56 were for murder. And of these 56, 17 involved misconduct by police, prosecutors, or forensic scientists.
Now, according to DOJ statistics, in approximately 0.8% of cases, the most serious conviction is for murder. So if the rate of wrongful convictions due to government misconduct is the same for murder as it is for other crimes, it follows, and 17 innocent people have been convicted of murder because of government misconduct, it becomes reasonable to estimate the total number of wrongful convictions is roughly 17*(100/0.8), which is roughly 2100.
However, this estimate likely understates the problem. For one thing, there are websites other than the innocence project's site which list murder exonerations. Thes are not the same cases as the ones on the Innocence projects website. So the total number of murder exonerations is larger than 56, and likely the total number of such exonerations involving government misdonduct is larger than 17. Which means that the above estimate is likely low.
There is another reason. In the above, we assumed that the rate of government misconduct in murder cases is likely similar to the rate of government misconduct in other cases. However, I believe that the rate for murder is likely to be lower than for other cases. This is because murder cases get more attention, so government misconduct in a murder case is riskier than in a less important case.
For the above reasons, the total number of innocent people convicted in the US is likely more than the 2100 number found above. It could easily be low by a factor of 2, or even more. Now since over half of our nation's prison population is black or latino, it is reasonable to believe that over half of those convicted due to government misconduct are black or latino.
So if we have substantially more than 2000 people wrongfully convicted due to government misconduct, and over half of those people are black or hispanic, it follows that there are likely thousands of wrongfully convicted people who are black or hispanic. In addition, there are many more who were wrongfully tried, but for some reason were able to escape conviction.
The upshot is that under a reasonable interpretation of what he meant, Goode's statement is likely true.
There are many who continue to support Duke, the institution, while simultaneously seeking a change in leadership.
We continue to hear of behind-the-scenes efforts to arrange a soft exit for Brodhead and other flawed members of his administration. We can only hope that this effort, which may not occur until Steele is removed also, is successful.
IMO, Brodhead has shown himself to be unqualified to lead an organization in the business of teaching students. He should seek employment in a field where he can do less harm to young men and women.
Goode: demonstrations on the Duke campus?
Oh, right. I remember. They were sort of impromptu,
in the classroom: it was when instructors loudly declared some of their students "rapists."
Or maybe it was the demonstration that involved potbanging and
a large sign calling for castration?
One of the most interesting things
about this case, is that the critics of DIW almost
never resort to the
facts, and when they attempt to, they don't have any.
Sort of like going to McDonald's
hoping to find real food,
not finding any,
and discovering that you don't have
any money anyway.
I remember Butch Williams coming on national TV in the first few days of the case pleading with people to keep an open mind, in fact alluding to the Tawana Braly case. Why did so many people not listen to him? He had it right and "got it" from the very beginning. I guess people with agendas, like the G88, don't really care about the truth, only their agendas. Anyway, in my opinion, Butch Williams was an unsung hero in the Duke lacrosse case.
I guess the journalism schools at these universities have been infected with the same desire to slant as the legal system. Is there such a thing as reporting without injecting the opinion of the author any more? You usually know withing the first 10 seconds or first paragraph what the "journalist" believes or wants you to believe.
Journalism is in trouble. Too many Duff types.
IS Ward Churchill a Communist?
1) Rodriguez says the following on academic bozos: "though their influence is minor in American higher education overall, they can be very influential in particular fields, such as comparative literature and gender and ethnic studies." Unfotunately, their influence is spreading like a cancer into other fields, such as literature and I believe history (KC, you can correct me on the latter if I'm wrong).
2) Rather than "treating three middle class white defendants as if they were poor and Black," this case demonstrated that for some people (see #1), privileged white people are the new poor and black. Neither the previous nor the current situation are acceptable.
3) Duke alumni don't have much use for Brodhead, but I don't think they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. As a Duke parent and alumnus, I hope he goes back to his buddies in the English Department, and the sooner the better.
4) Butch Williams must have been under intense pressure at the beginning of the case. I remember some interviews he did on TV and it's unfortunate that more people did not listen to him, in Durham and in the media in general. I believe he was the first or one of the first to figure out that the 911 caller must have been Kim Roberts, and that the whole thing made no sense since no one says "my black girlfriend" and because you can't see the 610 address from the sidewalk.
Could somebody explain something to me? The endowment increase means that the alumni are not giving as much as last year... Is this correct? The money is slowing down???
Butch Williams hardly deserves the level of praise you give him, KC. I heard him more than once telling other lawyers to vote for Nifong over Black in the primary and Nifong over Cheek in the general election. Under the circumstances, the word "hero" is a bit strong.
So the impact on fundraising seems to have been marginal. And we know that the impact on undergraduate admissions was marginal. These are responses from a very large number of people who clearly knew about the lacrosse case before spending their money or committing to four years of education at Duke.
Is it finally time for the die-hard posters on this blog to take off their ideological glasses and acknowledge the obvious -- that your slamming of Brodhead and the Group of 88 has consistently been overstated and the significance of their actions exaggerated?
WEEK IN REVIEW:
WASHINGTON: Democrats were caught in a sting surrendering to Iraq, Afghanistan, a naked PETA chick, as well as reaching terms of surrender for the War on Crime. Republicans, on the other hand, called for war against South Dakota.
LOHAN: She was drunk and/or drugged and/or half-naked somewhere doing something craven.
The "anti-anti-academic" crowd wants us to believe that the forcible seizure of constitutional due process, including the right to Free Speech and the presumption of innocence by "Race Hooligans" isn't important enough to look at or comment on.
Note to amac & K.C.: In the "Channeling Roman Hruska" blog, amac's and my comments seem to be similar, but I swear I didn't cheat off his or her paper. You've just been a good teacher, K.C.!
DESCARTES: "You exist because you think you exist."
JOHNSON: "You exist because I let you exist."
Nope. Alums spoke in many ways. Numbers were down. The record gift levels were skewed dramatically by the bigger record "gift" from The Duke Endowment. Without it, totals were WAY down.
Generally, alums seem to be very disappointed in the administration and the faculty (portion of it); however, it is OUR university. Not Dick Brodhead's and not the Group of 88s. In a couple of years when some of the clowns are gone, Duke alums will still be Duke alums. And the clowns will be another circus' problem.
Thanks for making it 7:18, I knew you wouldn't let me down. You make me smile everyday. God love you, and keep you coming back!!!
You people really need to get a life. I repeat: GET A FREAKING LIFE.
Brodhead is going to be president for awhile. He's really an excellent president and handled things as best as they could be.
The vast majority of the Group of 88 are at Duke to stay. The vast majority of them, while misguided in signing the ad, are essentially decent people.
Duke is going to move on from this and be just fine. Will KC and the rest of you NUTJOBS follow suit?
Duke can never return to the pre-lacrosse status until some major changes are made. The first being the dismissal of Kim Curtis.
I just canot believe that students who were so eager and willing to protest an accusation of rape are unwilling to protest their school employing a dishonest instructor. I would think that some students would walk out of class, or an ethical Professor would refuse to be among the same faculty.
I am just kind of shocked that students, alumni, and Professors at Duke have sat on their hands while the University continues to employ a Professor who is guilty of the worst ethical breach possible.
As long as Curtis remains employed by Duke the University cannot be taken seriously regarding ethics.
Your comments made my day!! I agree that all sides have lost perspective in this case. I think most alums see Broadhead's actions as an attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, rather than strong leadership.......... but Duke will certainly survive.
Lost in all the emotion is the typical Duke student... most students view the G88 as a nutty, generally harmless sideshow, without much effect on them. Duke students as a group are very bright, very ambitious, and relatively apolitical.......... this isn't Berkely in the 60's..... but they do have a keen sense of fairness to fellow students. The G88 ad was a huge political mistake. If they had simply remained relatively quiet, Duke's perceived involvement in the case would have been greatly reduced. In retrospect, Broadhead's greatest enemy was the G88, not bloggers or other groups.
Take a look at the article in the latest edition of the Duke alumni magazine.... it's remarkably balanced, and even critical of some aspects of the administration's handling of the case..... quite remarkable for an official Duke publication. The article also notes that historically, a huge, negative media event like the Larry Summers flap and the Stanford accounting mess generally result in the President's resignation.... I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Broadhead resign within the next year or so......... a "new broom" would certainly help Duke's image....
Channelling Roberto Duran:
Thanks KC for highlighting Butch Williams, though I also take note of 8:34's concern. I periodically wondered how the higher-ups in the black community here knew to sidle away from Mangum.
I agree with Goode on one point: Had the lacrosse players been black, the system would have treated them differently.
Yes, the Justice Department would be looking into civil rights violations.
Don't count your chickens yet, Chuckles. All this negative publicity and KC 's book isnt out yet and Nifong hasnt gone to jail yet and the civil suits (there will be some) havent been filed yet. And, oh yea, alumni donations ARE down, especially since December.
Oh, and student applications form certain quarters are down (white out-of-staters). The endownment and some of the large non-alumni donations will keep things flush indefinitely, but the school has been and will continue to feel the affects of this debacle. The "jury" is out on whether any heads will roll. You certinly have no idea, though.
Ohh the irony, my condemnation of those who rushed to judgment against the Duke LAXers prevents me from saying what I really think of Vick.
However, the fact that one of the "heroes" of the Duke case is working for Vick should make everyone realize that the defense lawyers are not actually heroes but well paid, and talented, mercenaries.
Be aware that "wrongful conviction" is *not* synonymous with "innocent."
The LAX players were absolutely, genuinely innocent of a crime that didn't even happen. This is a considerable step above "not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence." The latter can and does include many cases where not only did a crime occur, but there is a preponderance of evidence that the defendant did do it.
If there is not quite enough evidence to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt", the court improperly convicts anyway, and later the conviction is overturned on appeal. . . this is not "an innocent man going free." This is "the unfortunate but necessary side effect of a proper functional judicial system."
Butch Williams tried to calm the activists in Durham at the outset of the Hoax.
He and Kenneth Spaulding--who was appointed to the Whichard Committee--used to practice law together. While both had some relatively high profile cases, they are also both intimately familiar with the underbelly of Durham.
As one Durham leader once told me......
"The poor people in the black community love Ken."
Whatever that means.
I now take it to mean that no matter what some people do to repeatedly express their grievances, people like Williams and Spaulding will untimately go along with it by not making too many waves when they see such insanity take hold.
Indeed, Butch Williams knew from the start the kind of women Crystal Mangum and Kim Roberts are....but who could fight the insanity of Victoria Peterson and the rest of those nuts when they wanted to turn the Hoax into a Race-Fest?
They all knew there was no case. Mayor Bell knew there was no case. The DPD knew there was no case.
At least Williams can be given credit for not making an idiot out of himself the way his sycophantic CYA colleague Kerry Sutton did.
BTW....in the beginning, Williams confronted Kim Roberts and she tried to make a case out of that for a short time....telling people that Williams had threatened her...simply because he tried to reason with her before everything escalated.
Williams was right in the beginning, but later on he just fell in line with the rest....the way most non-heroes do.
This Hoax will always be looked upon as one sorry mess where the people in charge deliberately damaged the innocent...and still do not feel a bit of shame.
NUTJOB, huh? I don't have a clue what the future of Duke will be, but I can tell you my little story. As a Duke alumnus I faithfully gave to the school for years after graduation. However I stopped giving 10-15 years ago as it was apparent to me my school had joined the ranks of elite universities infested by a faculty less interested in scholarship than ideology. I also steered my four academically gifted children to other colleges. I sincerely doubt Duke will ever see a dime of my money but I can fervently hope Brodhead, Steele and 88-like faculty will move on...soon.
Grafton Potter T '68
Is Ward Churchill a Communist?
Aug 3, 2007 7:18:00 AM
Is the sky blue?
Does the sun rise in the east?
Do bears, etc.
"arrange a soft exit for Brodhead and other flawed members"
No way, Jose. A lot of time and effort has been devoted to deconstructing these fools and giving them a well-deserved evil name. The forces of good have the range and elevation zeroed in. They are and will increasingly become troublesome embarassments to their co-religionists. They are excellent teaching aids right where they are.
Regarding Brodhead, 10:01 wrote: He's really an excellent president and handled things as best as they could be.”
Are you serious?
If Butch Williams continued to support Nifong for election, then he is not a hero. But he was right at the beginning and deserves credit for taking that stand in a vigorous fashion on national tv. Reasonable people should have listened to him and cried out for justice, but unfortunately there were too many unreasonable people who had agendas that played to the mainstream media. Brodhead was part of the latter group along with the G88 and led by CJM.
While I admire KC's work on behalf of the boys, I'd have to agree that much of this stuff (including some of KC's posts) kind of make this site and its posters out to be the functional equivalent of the G88... radicals, really.
Bellacosa has the number:
88. He's got their number.
I guess Bellacosa is an academic, too? I would say so,
and he's an academic who has the
background to dismiss those academics - (like the one who thinks I'm Spiderman) - who
come to criticize KC, and who think that anyone who doesn't agree with them are:
(ok, the last one was Pat Buchanan's term, but they're
doing a fine immitation of ol' Pat)
As for Goode's concern about other victims of injustice: He may be right.
So we might dare to ask:
where was he when daycare center workers were being railroaded
into offering plea-bargained,
false confessions of sexual abuse
by pseudo-psychologists and dirty DA's?
Maybe Goode could call Bill Anderson, or look at his blog on Lew Rockwell,
or look at LS, and see that there are many of us who don't approve of injustice?
Then again, it would be too much to ask of him, since facts
seem to get in his way.
Pathetic. I repeat: PATHETIC.
Overgeneralizations, ad hominem attacks, fallacious "facts", no data, grammatical and spelling errors.
I give you an F.
Oh, G88 member or supporter?? Sorry , you get a B+ (forgot to mention racists or it would be an A}
Is Anonymous 7:18 a communist?
To GET A FREAKING LIFE / NUT JOBS:
Thanks for the intellectual value of what you add.
BTW, I have a life, faith, and I am already fine. I have children and I care about our country/society. Good people must act - and stay with it - in order for evil to not triumph. The sickness/bigotry/racism/invalid political correctness exhibited by the 88, Brodhead and many in the administration, BOT, and MSM is the kind of thing that can affect all of us and our children. The groups above CONTINUE to act with no accountability for their actions - the same accountabilities and sensitivities that they demand from everyone else. IMO, that's not "decent." The truth has this uncanny way of finding its way to the light of day.
To Anonymous @ 8:53
Maybe the impact on donations is marginal and the impact of admissions was marginal. What more would we expect for a school with a Turtle for a president, a group of misfits in it's administration, and a group of marginal academics?
Those of us who have been faithful followers of KC and his excellent blog may be ideological, but we recognized a HOAX when we saw one too. We also recognized that there is a serious problem with the academic leadership at Duke. Maybe we should embark on a major letter writing campaign to Bill and Melinda Gates and ask them to rescind their endowment. That might reveal the true effect of teh DU willingness to "railroad" the LAX team members and the 3 players who suffered through the indictments and related threats as well.
At least Mr. Williams tried. Sadly, it may have been that old Mikey N was the lesser of the evils. Isn't that a scary thought???
Ah, another day in Wonderland!
Re: Bellacosa. All the more reason to highlight the 88s "scholarship" and other peculiarities. These faculty themselves are pretty safe from the effects of the well deserved ridicule. The group that is not secure is the administration. The president, the provost, the dean, the department head that hustled the trustees to funds these hires, then recruited and endorsed them - in writing, no less - they are the vulnerable ones. The trustees now look foolish and remiss and they will punish those who brought shame to the campus. Not overnight, but slowly and surely it will happen as long as the spotlight remains on the 88.
Re: anonymous @ 10:01 AM
>> The vast majority of them, while misguided in signing the ad, are essentially decent people.
"A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person." --Dave Barry
You're just disappointed that Dickie Broadhead and his Klan of Klowns no longer have their true college to lead. Sarasota, Florida would have been a much better place for them than North Carolina. Unfortunately, the school for which this group is most suited closed in 1997. Maybe Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey used the lady with the crystal ball to see into the future and realize that in 2008 Dickie and his Klowns would be looking for employment. They closed rather than be humiliated by having this group on their faculty.
We NUT JOBS thankfully do now have to suffer through Dickie and the Klowns. If you like them so much, you take them. It doesn't matter where, just take them out of North Carolina. Check out Highlands Ranch, Colorado. Revere's home for pots and pans is there. That might be a great location.
Bang the drums (pots and pans) slowly!
Speaking of Obey Giant, here's an interesting spin on the obey authority meme:
Great article and good for Bellacosa. Unfortunately, Newsday is only a regional paper which nobody outside of Long Island/NY reads...and it has a bad reputation since several of its executives were charged with federal violations and advertiser fraud. Not exactly the type of publication that will carry great credibility with many people.
Judge Joseph Bellacosa is an example of why it is so appropriate to address members of the judiciary with the honorific:
and he states with remarkable clarity why it is just as appropriate to refer to the '88 as a:
Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Gang of '88 ... all gangs in Durham County NC. (Sources: http://www.gcc.state.nc.us/pubs/Gang%20Crime/countyinfo.PDF and DIW)
Thanks for including the Bellacosa piece this morning. I can see the responses now. "How can this mono-linguist, Amerocentric, privileged, white lawyer stand in criticism of our work?" blah, blah, blah.........
Floyd sez-"Lots of intellectuals and pro academics read the Newsday"
Remember all, as 10:01 pointed out, most folks involved in lynch mobs and senseless gang violence "are essentially decent people." He is sadly correct that Duke is going to "move on" steadily down the same path to destruction they first set foot on with the "Listening Statement"
GREAT work by Prof. Bellacosa!
It's probably been said before, but wouldn't it be cool to see a slew of "Not Wanted" posters around the Duke campus when school reopens shortly, with pics of each of the entire Klan of 88?
Poster wording would parallel the "wanted" posters circulated when the Hoax broke, but would condemn the K88 instead the the Lax team.
All in favor....?
Bellacosa's piece is staggeringly good. Take the time to read it if you get a chance.
Butch is okay - Brad and Jim are okay too, A few of those LS dopes are rehashing the event with criticizms of Brad. Like someone cares what they think? I would be surprised if Brad posted over there again.
Joe Sweet 12:28
Some views for the Wonderland crew of where KC will be going.
A comparison of Tel Aviv--the metropolis where he'll be--with more traditional Jerusalem:
I understand your (and notable others at Dook, including they who write big settlement checks and he who employs malicious faculty) considerable desire to just "move on" from this whole affair, because of how terribly Dook, its President and 88 pet imbeciles acquitted themselves in it.
By the same token, I imagine Orenthal would like to "just move on" from that one bad night in Brentwood. I guess the rest of us are unwilling to do so (in either case), until the problem is fixed.
If O.J. asked to marry your daughter, would you be willing to "move on", and just ignore awful transgressions of the past? Then why would you send your money, or worse, your children to Dook, until it fixes---or even admits---its problems?
Neither O.J. nor Dick Brodhead admit there was a problem, and neither has undertaken any steps to assure the public it won't happen again. I would love to engage with Brodhead on one simple question:
"Move on" from what? What is it you would like to put behind all of us? If, as at least one of your "esteemed" faculty have tried to convince us post-settlement, your faculty didn't do anything wrong, then why would you even want to move forward at all?
Are you even willing to admit that Dook sold merit-based academic achievement down the river for the sake of boosting its "diveristy cred"? Are you willing to admit that this poorly calculated decision backfired tremendously and publicly, when underqualified sub-scholars refused to exercise the discipline and restraint expected of learned professors (or to a lesser degree, that amount of discipline, maturity and restraint expected of someone who owns a copy of and understands the U.S. Constitution), and LYNCHED three of their students to advance their own personal, political agendas?
Is that what you just want to "move on" from?
Until he is willing to EVEN admit the mistake publicly, and take even the, ahem, token gesture of saying "Hey folks, our bad, we'll try to do better next time by at least honoring the spirit of the Constitutional presumption of innocence, or at least not slandering your kids when they're at their most vulnerable", why should anyone be willing to "move on"?
Instead, Brodhead is trying to buy his way out of his problems with someone else's money. No, sorry, anyone who loves Dook and its future shouldn't let its reputation for excellence wither on the vine with a diversity-at-all-considerable-costs (paid with your money, of course) apologists in charge. Anyone who values fundamental fairness and accountability (who may otherwise detest Dook, as I), shouldn't let him and his faculty off that easy.
I have MUCH more respect for a alcoholic trying his or her best to seek treatment, then I do for Brodhead and the 88 Lynchinistas. The alcoholic at least admits he has a problem and is trying to fix it. Brodhead is still in denial.
I hardly ever go over to Liestoppers.
They made some good videos...and always provided very humorous coverage during the case, but that place has never measured up to Wonderland in terms of quality.
Obviously, since Liestoppers originates in Raleigh, some of the defense lawyers show up there; however, I have always wondered why.
I'll bet Brad wishes he hadn't wasted his time.
An excellent example of how faculty should act.
Compare the reaction of Duke and its faculty to that of Donna Shalala after some students got into trouble at the Univ. of Miami:
"...It's time for me to say publicly that I believe in them, that I believe that they did something awful, but that I want them to continue at the University of Miami...
"But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships...
"It's time for the feeding frenzy to stop. These young men made a stupid, terrible, horrible mistake and they are being punished. They are students, and we are an educational institution and we will act like an educational institution, not like a PR machine trying to spin and restore an image that we worked so hard to put in place."
All this time and I never knew LS originated here in Raleigh. I rarely go there anymore either. It gets so ugly and off topic. But can you give us the short short version of what the issue is among LS, Brad, and Gaynor lately? Are we getting a little envious of each other or something?
To: 10:01 am
Another member of the Group of 88 posts more bile and propaganda. Sadly, these people need to get a life and another career, perhaps as propagandists or working on Madison Avenue with Martha Burk. Their attitudes demonstrate a unique detachment from reality, a total lack of accountability, an incapacity to admit and address mistakes, a politically correct attitude that is nauseating, the propping of myths that are dead (there is no patriarchy), etc. When they print a retraction, that they all sign, of their vile statements and people like Kim Curtis and Houston Baker admit they were wrong, there will be something to discuss. Until then, they are just hacks and morons.
I agree Deborah - the arm chair lawyers and "advisors" think very highly of themselves. They know better than Brad, Jim and Joe. It does get ugly there real fast. They also confront the poster with name calling, rather than the issue. Never confront their "buddies" even when wrong in their assesment - Like Ward's issue is first ammenment rights and not stealing others work,
Bellacosa's comments about "shunning" the 88 are better,
coming from him.
I have another modest proposal -(which is also on another thread, and is a little off-topic I admit)-
and that is...
Make Title IX apply to race, as well as sex.
To Debrah: I have always had great respect for Liestoppers. That blog broke a number of important stories on the case. The practical resources provided there are abundant, the skills amazing. I liken DIW to the "thesis" of the citizens' response, LS to the "actual data" and TalkLeft as the "peer review." That is a terrible over-simplification, I know.
Dean Bellacosa is stopping short of my suggestion: Have a bunch of students sign up for the Gang of 88 classes, then drop them on the next-to-last add/drop day. Depending on how they register for classes at Duke, it would also be sweet to see a bunch of students sign up as "K.C. Johnson" or "Richard Brodhead's Spine."
My question for the "anti-anti-charlatans": Why are you criticizing K.C. Johnson now? He has been gathering data for his actual work - the BOOK. Isn't what you are doing a "rush to judgment"?
It would have been nice if the Gang of 88 had researched their subject a little better before they came up with their actual work, the "Listening Ad." Unfortunately, they admittedly based their thesis only on HEARSAY and DOUBLE HEARSAY!
"After years of dogged pursuit, K.C. traced a circle to it's end, whereupon he was received untold riches." NATIONAL TREASURE II (a Debrah prod.). MOO! Gregory
The word innocence projcet has a nice sound to it. That is always important when you want to seem more than you are. Most people do not want to see an innocent person go to jail or prison. But not everyone who is 'not guilty' is innocent.
Many people get off on techincalities. Read in horror those how have been let go because of 'misconduct' in the justice system, and they commit a murder within days of their release.
Misconduct can be breaking the chain of command and not documenting it, not providing an interpretor when the person appears to speak English proficiently, illegal seach (looking and finding a bloody weapon in the glove compartment or truck of a car and not getting a seach warrant first), claims that they did not get their Miranda rights and so all the evidence- even a bloody knife is now not accepted, a racist cop (OJ trial)and it goes on and on.
The nightmare of some of the innocence projects that declare individuals innocent rather than admitting that the accused beat the charge on a technicality, is that many go on and commit horrific crimes against an unsuspecting public. Just read up on some the these peole who have been 'rescued.'
I question the number 'thousands' as well.
J agree that precise ideological balance in the academy is a bad idea and impossible beside. I fail to see how it is worse for academic freedom to have a legally imposed balance than the current socially imposed imbalance.
Academics with tenure are almost immune to any responsibility for their actions. So long as academics defend this system, the bias and irresponsibility will grow. If academia does not clean up its own house, the public will do it for them.
The lynch mob of 88 are symbolic of the failed system in academia. They know they are shielded from any effective action. They are laughing at us. I urge KC and his fellow academics to begin the hard work of reform before it is taken out of their hands.
thanks Debrah 12:42 for the site.
It lead me to some other good ones too.
"Maybe we should embark on a major letter writing campaign to Bill and Melinda Gates and ask them to rescind their endowment."
Or at least make sure they send no more. This is the best idea I've heard in a long while.
The attitude of 10:01 and similar ideas are the reason Duke has fallen from the ranks of other great Universities. The acceptance of mediocrity and the failure to engage in true self-assessment are clear.
If one cannot admit that Broadhead made mistakes they are fooling themselves. If anyone cannot admit that it is an embarrassment for Duke to employ Kim Curtis they are again fooling themselves.
The faculty at Duke is clearly not accountable to anyone for their actions. Kim Curtis is prime example number one.
10:01 - the people you refer to as "nut jobs" are anything but. Most of us are very well educated (even those of us who, contrary to the Gang of 88, graduated from Duke as a scholar athlete), are not seen as "nut jobs" by anyone in their respective fields, ply as their stock in trade in whatever endeavor to which they are engaged logic, and application of the facts to any particular matter, and generally, have respect for principled approaches to situations. This of course doesn't mean that folks such as yourself can't disagree, but really, dismissing most of the people as "nut jobs" is wholly inaccurate and frankly reflects prejudicial thinking. In a sense, I can understand the defensive reaction. Academia is in many quarters its own politically correct echo chamber, and a number of people can ascribe their career success, particularly in "victim studies fields" to being well honed apparatchiks instead of accomplished scholars (looking at Lubiano's scholarly output, or lack thereof, would anyone assert anything else?). And these elements are now being exposed to the light of day, and it makes some folks really uncomfortable and defensive. And in fact, the more defensive they become (like you, in your post, 10:01), the more people you putatively describe as "nut jobs" believe there is something really askance in academia, especially since its paying customers, the generally successful "nutjobs" you refer to, are really beginning to ask just really is happening to their hard earned tuition dollars. Again, post away 10:01 - but another defense response, rather than a carefully crafted, principled and factual one, will only cause most to believe that KC is irretrievably on the right track.
KC, you are a much-needed antidote to the unending stream of drivel coming from liberal academia. You demolish them completely with truth, logic and precision. DIW is my first stop every morning, and I'm dismayed at the thought that you will be moving on. Thanks for all you are doing.
From a New Jersey Lawyer. In response to CUNY Prof. Goode's comments, I can only say that if Nifong had brought such a patently groundless case against three black students at NCCU for the rape of a white Duke student, the NAACP and the ACLU would likely have been all over the case, and I don't mean just by monitoring.
Why would there be reason to believe Bill and Melinda Gates would hold their beloved Duke hostage over this? Haven't they proven themselves to be very left-leaning liberals in most things? I would think the G88 would not bother them at all. Just asking...
The following is excerpted from the latest issue of the HARVARD JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, with a link to the actual article, as it appears to be relevant to the discussion on this blog:
"The great achievement in the early 20th century was the combustion, gasoline-based engine. Until that time, travel was plodding and depended upon one's knowledge of an able cobbler or one's ownership of a draft animal. Once the discovery of the combustion engine was made, however, progress became exponential.
This type of revolution is what we may see with the latest advance in educational philosophy: "Gossip-Based Academics." A group of professors at Duke University have developed an educational paradigm based solely on the operation of hearsay or double hearsay.
For example, in the greatest achievement of "Gossip-Based Academics" to date, the 2006 Duke Chronicle "Listening Ad," the professors melded, "We HEARD that a woman hired to perform at a party ...." with "Neighbors, we were TOLD, HEARD racial epithets called out at the woman...." to create a "Gossiped-Based Theory" from which to implement a "Gossip-Based Plan of Education/Attack."
The potential application to other disciplines is endless. Math could be replaced with "Gossip-Based Math." There would be no need for biology as we know it when it can be replaced with "Hearsay-Inspired Biology-Like Classes." In those courses, everyone is right as long as you preface your answer in the form of gossip (i.e. 'I heard that the mitocondria....')."
In my earlier post, I left out other great blogs like JinC (the "specialist"), LaShawn (the "heart") and Johnsville (the "encyclopedia") of the hoax. These are all over-simplifications as well.
"Until K.C. scrapped the President's rough draft, FDR was planning to say that we had the Nazis, the Japanese and a piss-poor economy to fear as well." STATESMEN IN CRISIS (mac 2006). MOO! Gregory
Your description of those three sites is accurate, I suppose. You're much better acquainted with them than I.
I visit, but don't put down roots.....and for no particular reason. I just found myself coming back here always.
Perhaps my analysis is not totally accurate because I didn't spend much time on the others. I just like the fact that Wonderland is so clean and concise......not so many screamers. LIS!
Like everything else, it's a certain something undefinable....a chemistry, if you will, that makes this place unique.
Mostly, I have been impressed with KC's ability to harness and rein in the multitude of contributors here....and make them his audience. He's got a light touch of authority. He's not a dictator or forceful with his rules.....
....and as a result, you end up wanting to do what he says....or wanting to see things his way in many cases.
Remember that I have been upset with him before and he doesn't say a word......just goes about his business.
That type of personality is kind of intriguing since I often shoot from the hip....or the thigh.....(or from wherever) when I am discussing something.
Good post, Gregory.
I believe Gregory would be the better authority to explain the intricacies of that dust-up.
I will yield to his expertise.
What shocked me was the news that some posters at Liestoppers had attacked Brad Bannon and had questioned his work.
It all seems so cyber-barbaric and base.
They sure did and were their mean spirited selves, while doing so.
DIW is by far the best....clean, intelligent, focused, incisive.
I (heart) KC.
Never could understand the attraction to JinC, though. "I am going to write about such and such. But not tonight. I am going to the movies tonight. But I will write about it tomorrow. I will tell you things tomorrow. Here is a copy of what I said to so-and-so. Maybe later I will tell you what so-and-so said. Good bye." There was never any MEAT on that bone... never any addition to the conversation, in my mind. LS interesting but mean, and the Baldo cartoons ALWAYS had punctuation or capitalization errors. Drove me NUTS!
To William Jockusch at 3:56 a.m.:
Many people confuse the terms "innocent" and "wrongfully convicted". The vast majority of the "wrongfully convicted" are not innocent. The Innocence Project has trumped "exoneration" sometimes when it means only, "wrongfully convicted".
I have to come clean. As an alum, I DID contribute to the increase in giving to Duke.
I hope they spend my $0.88 wisely.
ES Duke 1990
Would you please check the URL that you listed.
It won't come up and I can't find it with Google.
Your summary is interesting.
Anon at 4:08 pm,
I am a very big fan of KC also. There are many here that will speak of the contributions of LieStoppers so I won’t waste your time.
I will take issue with your review of JinC though. First, I am not JinC but I have commented at his blog a number of times. JinC is included the first 5 links of every major blog that has covered the Duke Hoax for a very good reason: his coverage has been first rate.
Let me give you a couple of examples. His Durham PD Corporal Addison Series is quite illuminating. If you missed it then I will suggest that you do not understand a crucial component that fanned the flames of racial hysteria in Durham in March and April 2006.
Also, in my opinion, JinC’s most important contribution to understanding the Hoax has been his coverage of the truly abysmal News&Observer news reporting early on in the Hoax. For example, you may have missed JinC’s post just today where he writes a letter to the American Journalism Review managing editor Rachel Smolkin. In that letter JinC describes just some of the manifold failures of the N&O to adhere to the journalist's Code of Ethics. That is JinC at his best. If you have not read his series where he has held the N&O accountable for its failures, then again you have missed much.
I would certainly describe many of JinC posts as “adding to the conversation.”
Inre; "Is Anonymous 7:18 a communist?"
That's some kind of funny...
I think it was that little green guy in Star Wars who confirmed...
Churchill Ward progressive is...
That makes him much worse than a commie.
Anonymous 11:46 said...
...Speaking of Obey Giant, here's an interesting spin on the obey authority meme:
Yes! Looks like the center of the world for podcasts from the younger generation.
To Grafton Potter, Trinity ‘68
“I also steered my four academically gifted children to other colleges.”
If this post is legit, then you have spoken like a typical dookie – unknowing arrogance, supplemented by a misplaced sense of self importance. Is it any wonder that so many people often find duke alums objectionable? The university would do well by diluting the white, privileged Mid Atlantic student body with people of color, students from modest means, third world immigrants and the blue collar public schools of the south and Midwest. Perhaps it is that prospect that so worries the posters here. Not to worry – duke has always been about the money first, a helping hand for others later on.
Anon at 4:08 pm said something about "never any addition to the conversation."
A vaguely familiar turn of a phrase. Come on Melanie, fess up. It that you?
To bob h:
If you hadn't noticed, Duke is already doing a fantastic job of bashing and otherwise being as inhospitable as possible for "white, privileged Mid-Atlantic" students, especially male heterosexual athletic ones who don't subscribe wholeheartedly to the Angry Studies agenda.
Not sure that the others you mention, e.g. blue collar kids from the midwest, would like your notion that they "dilute" the student body.
Am I a communist?
I've been thinking about the only possible reason for Brodhead and the Gang of 88, et al, abandoning the true victims in the Duke Lacrosse Burning. The reason must be that Nifong's statements were so indicative of guilt. The reason must be that one must assume the veracity of voices of the court. The reason must be that the voice of a prosecutor must surely be founded in truth.
Well, is it worse to have a political agenda ... or to be easily duped. To be a stooge. To not have an ability to parse the truth. To act out the intellectual agility of a Pan paniscus (bonobo ape) when confronted with a difficult situation.
Either way... Brodhead should resign. He failed. He failed at a critical moment. He sacrificed his responsibility and duty for his students, only to defend the indefensible. The indefensible -- the logic of a political agenda that sacrifices truth for targeted results.
And I'd like to remind everyone that Brodhead's infamous letter of support (aka condemnation) coincided with the "Listening Statement."
Coincidence. I think not.
In fact, Brodhead met with representatives of the AAAS faculty on April 3, 2006, two days before his guilt-presuming statement, three days before the Group of 88 ad appeared.
No record exists of what was discussed at this meeting--but it strains credulity to believe that the Group's ad was not mentioned at some point.
You decide. Here are the posts from Michael Gaynor
Is Inman a state school?
To anonymous @6:24 pm
While the blue collar kids may not like the notion that they serve to dilute the pool at duke, there is a segment of old school dookies that most certainly would view it that way. And don’t think that so-called dook arrogance is limited to the Grafton Potters of this world. There is enough haughtiness and disdain among the AAAS crowd, albeit for different reasons, to fill a few boxcars. Nevertheless, duke has no intention of being openly hostile to the white male, privileged hetero-sexuals of the Mid Atlantic region – after all, who else will fork over the $48 grand!
6:09 You desroy your argument by painting with such a broad brush. I grew up well below blue collar. I post here. Are the rest of your arguments equally lacking factual basis?
Duke would do well to hire Judge Bellacossa to chair the university writing program. At the very least, his article should be required reading for all freshmen as an example of great writing, and compared to the untranslatable nonsense that many of the delusional 88 try to pass off as scholarship.
As I am in a certified state of inebriation, allow me to act the fish and swim in school...for then I am a "state school"....(7:06 is then prophetic).
But, back to basics:
Brodhead betrayed the trust of his students. He defended agenda-driven faculty when truth was absent and when innocence demanded a defense of youth. He decided that political expediancy required a voice moderated only by presumption of guilt. No one, I repeat, no one, no thinking person can read his statement of April 6,2006 as anything other than a condemnation of the lacrosse team and his acknowledgement of likely guilt.
I am offended by those who say Brodhead asserted "innocence until proven guilty." Quite the opposite. He was one of the hangmen who knotted the noose.
I repeat my earlier entreaty: Mr. Richard Broadhead must resign.
He failed at a critical moment and his singular failure cannot be rewarded.
Thomas S. Inman '74
The Board of Trustees has so far avoided the scrutiny of those who have witnessed and who have chronicled the abuses of the '88 and Duke's leadership.
Perhaps it is time to focus the lens of judgment on the Board. For certainly, at this point, they are accessories after the fact. They have, through their silence, enabled the enablers.
Perhaps, they should be the subject of KC's and this blog's scrutiny.
Wouldn't that be interesting!!
The Gang of 88 are mere pawns in the larger struggle. Let's start analyzing the Kings and Queens!!!!
But let's immunize Steele and Wagoner... for the moment at least, for they are after all Duke grads. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Part of the debate that KC has uncovered is what might be called "unchallenged axiom."
Axioms are, basically, accepted or evident truths. They work in mathematics, natural sciences and engineering, but they don't fit so well in the humanities.
It's particularly devastating to scholarship when things that pass for knowledge are unchallenged by rigorous scrutiny. For example, it is common and fair that historical axioms are challenged - (and they are with some frequency) - and any 88er with any degree of honesty should know this. (The problem is, "88" and "integrity" seem to be mutually exclusive terms, judging by 87 non-apologies.)
Some of the educators KC has exposed have gotten by - (until recently) - with very little scrutiny.
It's a terrible thing for academia when myth is elevated to axiom, becoming "axio-mythical."
(ah, there's that dreaded X-word, Grant!) That's why there are so many jokes about floating phalluses, IMO, not only because the images are so sexual, but the visual image of anything levitating is bizarre: consider the image of the levitating of Miss Samples? (sounds like a movie title? "Levitating Miss Samples?")
This is not a Beavis/Butthead moment, as some have insisted: it's amusing as a measure of physical unreality, like the postulation of flying pigs and elephants: phalluses are merely the new levitated object(s)! (While it's not neccessarily infantile to bring up such images as the floating phallus, levitating Samples etc, it is becoming redundant and a little hackneyed.)
The nouveau-mythologies of some of the highlighted professors are fair targets for scrutiny: they appear to be overlaying and adding personal mythologies to existing ones, and calling it scholarly work.
Perhaps someone should start a school within Duke University, with the departments listed below:
The School of Axiomythology!
Intructors and professors are already available!
One of the problems with the 88 is that they have imposed their internalist beliefs (presuming motive of others, attributing cause based upon interpreted assumption of those motives, and conclusions based upon their own presumptions,) on innocent students.
Their strict adherence to "facts" they believe and manufacture are somehow illustrative of those presumptions, assumptions and presumed motivations are comical in their own lack of self-analysis: their facts are nothing more than assumptions and presumptions, and their conclusions are multiplicative of those! Talk about wobbly logic!
The presumption of guilt, without regard for evidence, is in other words, an internalistic view of this case, and the 88 have applied their internalistic beliefs to others. What's odd is that they leap back and forth between internalism and externalism when it's convenient,
(eg that there is no moral reason for action, morality doesn't guide decision-making etc.)
As usual KC has objectively nailed all the issues while prompting some great feedback and dialog.
Way out here in Texas we certainly feel that the "Group of 88" needs to somehow be held accountable for their behaviors. By our inaction now we ultimately may allow them to claim credit for an honest academic perspective. They purely and simply engaged their perverted agendas, no matter the truth or the cost.
How can a great university survive an honest academic scrutiny with these pesudointellectual thugs still present? Broadhead has done a great diservice to Duke and the American academic community.
To K.C. Johnson: I did not know about the meeting between Brodhead and the AAAS on April 3, 2006. That is very suspicious, given, as you note, Brodhead's condemnation came out a couple of days later and the "Listening Ad" came out one day after that. I bet the AAAS DEMANDED Duke action against the RAPISTS! I will not rush to judgment on that issue but wait for more information.
To bob h: You say that "duke has always been about the money first, a helping hand for others later on." Why should it be about "a helping hand for others" first? Shouldn't it be about education first?
That was a nice post about mythologies mac! Would a Duke student be able to get a "Gossip-Based Sociology/Mythology" double major?
France surrenders to K.C. Johnson on average every 7 minutes. There, they just did it again! From: "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys and Other Continentals." MOO! Gregory
Actually, I liked your "Gossip-based" academia better than my
"axio-mythology," and the two combined
- (axio-mythology and gossip-based-academia) -
appear to be a concise and complete summary
of the educational style and
substance of some of 88.
Great satire, MOO Gregory!
(I meant to comment earlier.)
MOO Gregory 5:04
To answer your question:
"Would a Duke student be able to get a 'Gossip-Based Sociology/Mythology' double major?"
No, but they'd be able to better understand your order for
a Biggie Fries at the drive-up window!
Post a Comment