An extraordinary recent op-ed from The Stanford Daily reflects the high case-related performance from the college media. Christopher Anderson, a graduate student in electrical engineering, noted that the lessons from events at Duke particularly resonate at his institution:
The debate continues at Stanford about how much of a split should be allowed between the college athlete pool and the student body at large. Duke University is just wrapping up a live-fire study of such an issue with the now-infamous Duke lacrosse rape case, and the results show there is a small but significant portion of the student body and faculty whose hatred of “athletic privilege” is impervious to fact, truth and justice.
In this respect, “The case certainly puts some of the more shrill voices opposing big-time sports in a different light.
In 25 paragraphs, Anderson summarized affairs in as clear and concise a production as I have seen from any writing on the case. To him, “It’s a complex case and a difficult timeline to follow, if only because it boggles the mind to think that one person with a handful of conspirators could be so nefarious in so many different ways.”
Nifong didn’t act alone, as Anderson understood:
- The faculty: “A group of 88 professors took out an ad condemning a campus “social disaster,” a thinly-disguised attack on a group of their own students. Duke English Prof. Houston Baker issued a hysterical, racist and unsubstantiated letter demanding the dismissal of every player on the team and the abolishment of the lacrosse program.”
- The administration: “This lynch mob was not quelled by Duke president Richard Brodhead, who stated “whatever they did was bad enough” and suggested the case go to trial so the players would have the opportunity to “prove their innocence.’”
- Journalists: “Some members of the media seemed content to slough off their guilt by rejoicing in the players’ suffering. These normally liberal commentators became reborn Puritans, screaming that these men deserved their Kafka-esque experience for having a tasteless spring break party.”
The outcome, in a perceptive point: “Nifong’s absurdity is, paradoxically, the silver lining. Without his preposterous pursuit of the case as it collapsed around him, the world might see these charges as a he said-she said, not-enough-evidence incident that was squelched by slick lawyers. In criminal justice, the tie goes to the accused. Instead, by continuing to go forward, Nifong disgraced himself and opened the door to the players’ exoneration.”
Anderson concluded, “Thanks to a minister of injustice, justice prevailed.”
--------
My colleague, Stuart Taylor, has an important article in this week’s National Journal looking at the general problem of false accusations and convictions.
“As recently as 20 years ago,” he notes, “it was extraordinarily rare for a convicted prisoner to establish his or her innocence conclusively enough to get public attention. That changed with breakthroughs in DNA science.” The work of the Innocence Project is the best example of this pattern.
The problem? “America has been too slow to appreciate that the DNA exonerations, and other evidence, suggest that many thousands of other wrongly convicted people are rotting in prisons and jails around the country. And our federal, state, and local governments and courts have done far too little to adopt proposed criminal justice reforms that could reduce the number of innocent people convicted while nailing more of the real criminals.” Moreover, “the kind of DNA evidence that can conclusively prove innocence or guilt is available only in a small fraction of cases, mainly rapes and rape-murders in which sperm is recovered.”
How can false convictions be reduced? Requiring law enforcement to tape record witness and suspect interviews is a good place to start, Taylor argues. Taking more seriously “police and/or prosecutorial misconduct” is another critical step. And Taylor urges appeals courts to end their “almost complete deference to findings of guilt by juries and trial judges,” especially in cases where errors of fact are obvious.
While wrongful prosecutions disproportionately harm the poor and minorities, “well-off white men are not exempt from wrongful prosecution. This was spectacularly illustrated by the fabricated rape charges against three innocent Duke lacrosse players. Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong falsely demonized them as rapists, racists, and "hooligans," thereby gaining enough black votes to win what had been an uphill election battle. Nifong (who is white) also rigged a photo-identification process to frame the three for a nonexistent crime, hid DNA proof of innocence, and lied to the public and the court for many months before North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took over the case and declared the defendants innocent.”
“Nifong has been disbarred and still faces a contempt-of-court charge. But his richly deserved fate is almost unheard-of. Most state bars and judges have given passes even to prosecutors who have hidden or falsified evidence to put innocent men and women on death row.”
---------
Angela Davis also viewed the case through the prism of prosecutorial abuse—but suggested a disturbing lack of knowledge about events in Durham. While she recognized that “Mike Nifong’s decision to withhold exculpatory evidence was neither legal nor ethical,” Davis claimed—in an article, again, criticizing prosecutorial abuse—that “Nifong’s initial decision to charge three Duke University students with rape was not unreasonable.” It’s not unreasonable for a prosecutor to seek indictments without probable cause?
“Nifong,” she hypothesizes, “was undoubtedly mindful of the justice system’s poor treatment of rape victims, especially African-American women”—as if past poor practice could justify current indefensible decisions.
She further notes, “If he had failed to pursue the prosecution of wealthy white men accused of raping a poor black woman, he would have been justifiably criticized. Facing an election in a jurisdiction with a sizable African-American community, he had the three students indicted for rape, first-degree sexual offense, and kidnapping.”
So: because a guilt-presuming populace wanted indictments, Nifong would have been “justifiably criticized” for not moving ahead, even though there was no evidence a crime had occurred, much less the people charged were guilty?
Davis also rewrites the history of the case: “When it became clear that the state could not possibly prove guilt, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper removed Nifong from the case and dismissed the indictments. State disciplinary authorities quickly brought ethical charges, and Nifong was disbarred in June.”
Actually, of course, the Bar filed ethics charges, and Nifong, faced with a conflict of interest, recused himself. Cooper did not act “when it became clear that the state could not possibly prove guilt”—and when he did reach a determination, he declared the players innocent.
---------
Last week two key Nifong allies departed the scene in different ways.
First, the intrepid investigators at the Liestoppers forum have discovered that SANE nurse Tara Levicy has sold her house in Durham, and made inactive her North Carolina nurse’s license.
And so Levicy won’t have the opportunity to influence any more North Carolina criminal justice cases by making dubious diagnoses of “blunt force trauma” or shifting her story in ways that correspond with the prosecutor’s latest version of events.
The bad news: she’s now a practicing nurse in New Hampshire. So Granite State attorneys should keep on speed dial the number of Dr. Anne Burgess—who first developed the term “rape trauma syndrome,” but who was prepared to testify for the defense if the lacrosse case had done to trial, so outraged was she by Levicy’s behavior.
Second, the state NAACP has—nearly four months after AG Roy Cooper publicly proclaimed the players innocent—removed from its website Al McSurely’s guilt-presuming memorandum of law. It appears that even the NAACP no longer believes, as McSurely claimed, that the players “must deal with a mountain of physical evidence, that is corroborated by, we have reason to believe, accounts of some of the men who were at the party who have cooperated with the police and the D.A. from early on.”
---------
The author of the Group of 88 statement, Wahneema Lubiano, has posted the newest version of her CV on her Duke website. The perpetually forthcoming Like Being Mugged by a Metaphor and Messing with the Machine are still listed as “forthcoming”—as they have been for the last 10 years. (In the academy, “forthcoming” usually means that a book has been completed and has entered into the publication process.)
In the CV, Lubiano also laid out her “articles and essays in collections.” In the past eight years, the Group stalwart has produced two articles. One, a forthcoming piece, is an interview. I’ve looked at a lot of academic CV’s, and I can’t recall ever seeing a professor count being interviewed as an academic publication.
Lubiano’s only other publication since 1999? A four-page essay on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. (That article, published in 2005, also listed as “forthcoming” Like Being Mugged by a Metaphor and Messing with the Machine.) In the essay, Lubiano took aim at press reports of looting in New Orleans following the hurricane. How did she frame her discussion? With a quote from war criminal Hermann Göring.
In yesterday’s discussion thread, I mentioned that a Group member had produced only a half-page of scholarship per year since 1999. A Group sympathizer in the thread assumed that of the 88, Lubiano had compiled this record (apparently Lubiano has quite a reputation, even among her peers). The sympathizer offered the following defense: “I think that there are many, many examples of intellectuals at the heart of institutions who have published very little—even at the rate of 0.5 pages a year.”
Some people might wonder whether implying that the American media of 2005 was following the mindset outlined by a Nazi war criminal represents the quality of thought that we should expect from those “intellectuals,” who, “at the heart of institutions,” publish “at the rate of 0.5 pages a year.”
Hat tip: B.F.
[An excellent comment from down in the thread today:
I am not in favor of hounding Ms. Levicy, and I regret the language in some of the comments concerning her. I wish her well in her new abode. But her defenders need to consider an important point. Levicy’s role was in fact far more dangerous than that played by Lubiano. It is true that Lubiano, who seems to have more time on her hands than some of her colleagues, spearheaded the professionally improper public “Listening” statement. That statement helped to inflame local tensions, and the defense attorneys were right to cite it as one of several evidences that a fair trial, if matters came to that, was not to be had in Durham. But Lubiano is an expert in nothing, and her opinions regarding “social disaster” have no more authority than yours or mine. Levicy is (or was) a medical professional whose testimony could reasonably be supposed to be that of an expert. One has to conclude that her testimony, false as to fact, was actually suborned by her own political beliefs. This is not the same as saying she was lying pure and simple. We say “seeing is believing”, but it often works the other way around. In a complex or ambiguous situation we “see” those things we are predisposed to believe. It is fairly harmless that Lubiano is predisposed to see imaginary analogies between FEMA and the Third Reich or whatever. That mental aberration is unlikely to have much social result. The postmodernist academic jargon of a bunch of Duke professors may be incomprehensible and indigestible, but it unlikely to be lethal. Imaginary “blunt force trauma” conceivably could have put somebody in jail.]
288 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 288 of 288To 6:03
"It is fairly harmless that Lubiano is predisposed to see imaginary analogies between FEMA and the Third Reich or whatever. That mental aberration is unlikely to have much social result. The postmodernist academic jargon of a bunch of Duke professors may be incomprehensible and indigestible, but it unlikely to be lethal."
I couldn't disagree more.
While it was KC observing that the best traditions of the academy were violated by this Klan of 88, for me their action seemed outright dangerous, precisely like those of a lynch mob.
When a group people with "mental abberrations" (your words) ban together such as this Klan of 88 did, it is downright dangerous AND lethal, and history proves that fact.
Reasonable people have "tolerated" for too long the "fairly harmless" activities, shoddy scholarship, devisive ideology, and "mental aberrations" of professors like these. Provost Lange's reply to the mentally abhorrent Houston Baker was right on target, and ranks as the only "official" condemnation from the Duke administration. And it was not strong enough in its castigation of Baker's incredibly racist behavior.
As Levicy has no business being a SANE nurse, these professors have no business teaching young people, either. They are significantly dangerous and clearly "lethal."
One Spook
tO 6:10
Since going to a party where strippers perform is basically never followed by a false accusation of rape, what you say makes no sense.
I suppose you could extend your admonition to just say, "Never be alone with a woman and you will never be accused of rape." But that does not work either. After all,none of the Lax guys were ever alone with Precious.
If you are going to bring up "lessons to be learned" from this at least be adequately focused on the facts.
Anyway, here are some.
1. Always get lots of timed stamped photos when dealing with emotionally unstable females.
2. Never trust the cops. Or a DA. Or your own University Administration(At least with anything serious).
3. Always have KC Johnson and others to ride to your aid when trapped by thuggish white trash small town law enforcement because otherwise you are in deep trouble.
No one ever said Levicy committed outright crimes that would cause her to lose her license. But on the other hand, the cost to her career as a sane nurse from this is just barely beginning.
Professor Horwitz at 3:03 pm,
Your addition here in KC’s comments has added to the level of thoughtful, rational discourse. I look forward to your commentary and generally find that I agree with your observations. You may receive other comments similar to mine; I hope you will stay nonetheless.
With regard to your assertion that LS published Levicy address. That is not true. A commenter at LS posted the address and other information relating to the sale of Levicy’s former house. Again, the house has been sold; it is no longer owned or occupied by Levicy.
Levicy’s address was very easily obtainable through public records and could have been “published” by any blog writer or commenter at any time during the course of the Hoax. To the best of my knowledge, it was not.
You speak of “attempts to harass her by informing her new employers of her role here.” To the best of my knowledge, Levicy’s current or future employer is unknown by any commenter here or elsewhere. Commenters, I believe, have informed the NH Board of Nursing about Levicy’s conduct and activities related to the Duke Hoax.
You assert: “We don't know all of the facts and many here are jumping to all kinds of crazy conclusions.” By “we” I presume you mean commenters here and elsewhere that write about Levicy’s contribution to the Hoax.
While there may be a few here and elsewhere that may have jumped to all kinds of crazy conclusions with regard to Levicy, it has been my experience that most bloggers and serious commenters stick close to the facts. And I will certainly concede I don’t know all the facts with regard to Levicy’s involvement with the Hoax. But the facts I do know certainly are damning enough. For example, I refer you to KC’s comment just above in this thread:
As KC said above:
“As we know:
(1) Levicy stated there were signs consistent with a rape even though there was no rape;
(2) She shifted her story as the case progressed, always in ways that conformed to Nifong's needs at the time;
(3) She (by her own admission) told Mark Gottlieb items that were not in her written report;
(4) If a trial had occurred, she would have been Nifong's co-starring witness, along with Mangum;
(5) If a trial had occurred, her behavior was going to be strongly critiqued by one of the founders of her field.
To me, that's an extraordinarily troubling record.”
You indicate that the working hypothesis of your comment is: “Absent some concrete evidence to the contrary, it seems only decent and human to grant her the good faith of believing that she learned a lesson from this whole experience and wants to start fresh in a new place.”
I will respectfully suggest sir that if you believe that to be true about Levicy, then you may not be current with regard to all of the facts that are known about Levicy. For example: as late as January 2007 (after all that had been made public about the Duke hoax, and after what presumably would have been a number of meetings with DUMC malpractice attorneys) it is documented that Levicy’s activities included the following:
1) (Despite having written in March 2006 during the SANE exam that ‘no condums were used’) according to Wilson, “Ms. Levicy stated she asked if condoms were used and Ms. Mangum said ‘no’ but wasn’t really sure. Ms. Levicy stated that it was her opinion as a [sexual assault nurse examiner] that ‘victims can never be sure if condoms are used because if they can’t see them how would they know for sure. You can’t feel them so you have to realize there is always a possibility that a condom could have been used.’”
2) Seeking to explain the lack of DNA evidence, Levicy offered an item more appropriate for the kind of papers she might have submitted as a women’s studies major at the University of Maine than to a medical exam: “I wasn’t surprised when I heard no DNA was found because rape is not about passion or ejaculation but about power.” Examination of a rape victim, she subsequently explained, often failed to reveal the existence of semen, and hence it came as little surprise that Meehan’s tests showed no DNA matches to lacrosse players.
3) In her interview with Wilson, Levicy, for the first time, claimed that Mangum told her on March 14, 2006 that she knew her attackers were using first-name aliases. In a subsequent interview, Kingsbery pointed out that Levicy’s March 14 report had contained no mention of this claim—nor had Mangum made such a claim in her March 16, 2006 interview with police. Indeed, the police conducted their March 16 photo lineups using players named “Matt,” “Adam,” and “Brett” as the prime suspects.
Levicy’s only response to this observation? “Oh.”
4) She [Levicy] did deny, however, that her new “knowledge” came from media sources—since, she told defense attorneys, she had deliberately avoided any press coverage about the case. At another point in the interview, however, she commented that Dan Flannery had made the call to hire the strippers. Kingsbery then asked her how she knew Flannery’s name, since he gave the name Dan Flannigan to the stripper agency. That must have come from having read newspaper articles about the case, Levicy replied.
The four above documented Levicy activites are all from KC’s medical posts.
To become further informed you may want to read writings by other forensics and SANE nurses. Their very educational writings and links to their blogs and blog commentary are also available at the KC’s medical posts.
My position is predicated on the belief that absent DNA evidence to support his case, Nifong relied on Levicy as the sole source of “medical evidence/expertise.” Without that medical evidence/expertise Nifong would not have been able to whip-up the hysteria in Durham to the level he accomplished. Further, it is arguable that absent Levicy as the sole source of medical evidence/expertise, Nifong might have dropped the case very early on.
My position is simply this: Levicy’s conduct well after the SANE examination is clearly indicative of an invidual with an agenda and clearly indicative of a nurse who, given the opportunity to perform in the capacity of a SANE, would again repeat the conduct she exhibited during the Duke Hoax.
Given all the foregoing, it is my belief that it is entirely appropriate to introduce Levicy’s Duke Hoax conduct to the NH Board of Nursing. Further, it would be appropriate to inform any current or prospective employer of Levicy’s Duke Hoax conduct.
Decency, Professor Horwitz, has nothing to do with the Levicy’s conduct from March 2006 through May 2007.
Anonymous said...
Debrah and Inman:
To each of you, who plays the other in the movie??
8/10/07 5:38 PM
I've been trying to read through all of these, but I had to stop at this one!
For Debrah, I think of someone like Amanda Peet's character in Saving Silverman ... someone like a youthful Faye Dunaway ... I'll go with Glenn Close.
For Inman, I'm picturing maybe a slightly younger Fred Thompson or Joe Don Baker type... or Walter Matthau in his prime ... How about Bruce Willis playing Inman?
For the starring role, who else but Brad Pitt could play KC?
"The work of the Innocence Project is the best example of this pattern."
Of course, in NC the head of the Innocence Commission is now Kendra Montgomery-Blinn, a woman who was a character witness for Nifong.
The wrongly convicted in NC shouldn't be holding their breath for their exoneration with her at the helm.
I now understand why Tara's troll bothers me so much: her writing is as bad and insipid and ungainly as my mother's, God rest her soul. As far as her writing goes: same typos, same repetitiveness, same poor sentence structure. Very close. Same delusional beliefs, too.
It is an unfortunate reminder, mostly because of my mother's disbelief regarding the abuse I suffered under at the hands of (several) others.
I see the same denial of reality in this case, this one believing in Tara with the same unreality as my mother, who couldn't acknowledge that I was beaten and later raped manually by a doctor.
I guess when I was arguing with this illiterate dolt, I was arguing with a ghost.
MOO Gregory, I'm ready to take your challenge: no more responding to Tara's Trolls. I promise.
Thank Gd, we are writing on a blog and not a term paper.
@ Inman (and still off topic)
I can think of contexts in which one or the other sentence would be perfectly clear. And I suspect no native speaker of English would SAY the wrong grammatical form in such contexts even though, as I suspect is virtually certain to be the case, the speaker had no clue that English had such Germanic fossils as separable and inseparable verbs.
You are certainly right that sentences can frequently be recast to avoid certain usages, but I find many such recastings, as in the Churchill story, to be awkward. I try to avoid split infinitives, but once in a while, the sentence simply seems to demand one.
You were also right that the post you criticized was close to illiterate. I apologize for being snarky to you.
JeffM
Carolyn @ 5:40
Did you ever consider that the blood flow to her brain was reduced by the force of the sphincter on the neck? How do you expect her to say anything competent? It would be entirely out of character. Like the Reversed Barber, Whyme Liebenow, Gotlies, Butthead and Beavis (the wonderful Duke administrators).....what more do you expect? Intellignece would have no bearing on anything they say or write.
mb
I agree with you completely.
anonymous at 7:01
6:35 don't you think there should be a trial first - view the sworn evidence and a judge or jury verdict. Innocent until proven quilty - not just hearsay information.
By saying that I must assume that you are in favor then of charging Precious with a crime and letting her have her day in court and face the LAX 3. She started this whole thing with lies. You are saying that it's time for her to wake up and smell the coffee, right? We should really feel sorry for her two children. Imagine having to go through life knowing that your mother cried rape not once but twice. Three strikes and she should be confined to an institution permanently.
Mikey's motivation was votes. What was the motivation for Precious? Personally, I think she was looking for a settlement. That's why she "picked" Dave, Reade, and Collin. A little research to find which families had the resources to fill her bank account. Unfortunately for her, she picked three families who felt it was more important to speak the truth than to pay "hush" money.
Start the registry. Precious can be the first entry. In many ways, she's just as dangerous as some predators. IMO, she IS a predator.
7:01
Hearsay is information that is conveyed second hand. An example woulde be: "CMG said that Brett said that he was going to jump my bones." The double "said" is the clue.
To the best of my recollection and belief, most (if not all) of the damning evidence relating to 'Florence Nightengale' [thank you Debrah] involves no hearsay whatsoever. It is, I believe, direct evidence. Documented. Signed and sealed. Now delivered.
Question: Are you trying to demonstrate that mental retardation is no impediment to blog postings? If so, I'll simply nod my head and acknowledge your 'situation.' Otherwise, you are pathetic, but nonetheless, 'fair game'.
The NAACP said Nifong had a "mountain of evidence " - You know where that went". The same place Duff's "body of evidence" went. The repprt is the only thing that matters and trumps all your speculation. Fess Up now - Be big boys - apologize and take your medicine. The "facts" ain't changing.
And Angela Davis has another very-distant link to the whole Duke sceanario, which is probaby what makes her know so much about it. She and miriam cooke are both on the list of the 100 worst U.S. professors per the link at wikipedia someone provided a couple of days ago.
Small world--that world of academics!
Jeffm @ 7:40
Thank you for your cogent critique. I am always open to such detailed comments ... comments that allow me to learn.
Florance Nightingale was the "good" nurse. You might want to goggle her on the internet. Calling her Florance is an honor. Pathetic - can you guys not have a discussion without personal insult. I certainly am not interested in your unfounded speculation. There is no evidence except the report. Off for fun and games.
Here is a surprise - all that stuff about Florance is second hand information. From Gottlieb to ??? and Kingsbury to KC.No documentation, the only sworn testimony was at the bar hearing - which was nothing. Have fun tomorrow while I am at the PGA.
7:19 Brilliant - no spelling. typos or grammer mistakes. How about you guys answer that post - I know trying to insult posters is your gig but give the facts a go.
I've been reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's wonderful book, "The Black Swan". In it, among many other things, he discusses the Problem of Induction, David Hume, and others historic look at the problem.
It seems to me that Nurse Levicy and her defenders suffer from this problem.
Taleb explains the problem by using an example of a turkey that for 1000 days gains weight. The turkey is fed slightly more each day. Empirically everything is great, however on the 1001 day the turkey is, quite unexpectedly prepared for Thanksgiving dinner.
In other words a SANE feminist nurse's only perspective is the pap taught and there is a very real world risk that what you don't know, can't possibly consider, and bites you in the ass.
By the way, this example works well for sub-prime mortgage hedge fund managers/investors who have recently been getting kicked in the balls.
Problem of Induction:
David Hume framed the problem in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, §§4.1.20-27, §§4.2.28-33.[1] Among his arguments, Hume asserted there is no logical necessity that the future will resemble the past. Justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past, then, begs the question. It is using inductive reasoning to justify induction, and as such is a circular argument. This logical positivist formulation of the problem would prove to be a tenacious counterargument to the use of inductive propositions. Further, even the largest series of observations consistent with a universal generalization can be logically negated by just one observation in which it is false...
I'm not commenting upon any specific post, nor on any specific issue, but when a poster dares you to provide evidence - and then an attorney or legalist of some sort shows up and does the same - beware! There may be an effort to engage a lawsuit, and the parties involved probably haven't any basis for which to sue...however, threats have been made on certain topics.
I would suggest that posters express their opinions, but not to make claims that criminal behavior has been proven, not unless authorities have stated as much, and then only in the context of quoting them. Satire is generally considered personal expression, a form of protected speech, as is opining in general. It might be wise to avoid being baited: if a trollster attempts to get you to make a comment about someone else, make it about the troll, instead, or stick to the topic in a way that is responsive, not reactive.
KC will likely make a lot of money on the book. There are perhaps certain interests who would
a) like to prevent the book from being published.
b) that failing, wouldn't mind taking a fat cut from the profits.
As I said, to no one or nothing in particular: be careful. Trolls could be trolling for dollars or for retribution, not for their own entertainment.
All little perspective on the “Tara’s Troll” for those who may not be aware.
A quick scan of the nonsensical Levicy related comments today can be attributed, if not entirely, then nearly entirely to one commenter. That commenter has the pseudonym “vegas” at LieStoppers and other discussion boards. She is also known derisively as “begas” here and elsewhere because she once registered on a troll board, and in the process of registering misspelled “vegas” as “begas,” thus giving birth to “begas.”
For example, the comments at 8:26 pm, 8:31 pm and 8:42 pm are all by begas. She has claimed earlier to live in Vegas (presumably where she posts from now). Earlier today she said she was going to watch the PGA. At 8:31 above she says she will attend the PGA tomorrow (in Tulsa). Such are the delusions of begas.
Begas cannot comment anonymously at LieStoppers. As a result, she has effectively been run-off from that discussion board.
Unfortunately, she chose KC’s comment location to continue her diatribe. While KC might not do so, if he would just identify how many comments today were made from begas’ IP address, that revelation might effectively prevent her from posting her delusional nonsense at this blog.
One thing I've enjoyed about this blog from the beginning is how KC will examine a subject and try to find out about it using source documents not just hearsay or newspaper reports. In other words research some question; sort of makes you wish he was research editor for the NYT. Now he turning that searchlight on some faculty at Duke who to him must represent the "other"
those who do no research, with no consideration but what forwards their agenda, and no remorse for forwarding a false premise. It is all hot air, smoke and mirrors much like their academic career. Maybe its a good thing they are not producing more as that would just be more rust in the machine.
“…This inability to automatically transfer knowledge and sophistication from one situation to another, or from theory to practice, is quite a disturbing attribute of human nature. Let us call it the domains specificity of our reactions. By domain-specific I mean that our reactions, our mode of thinking, our intuitions, depend on the context in which the matter is presented, what evolutionary psychologists call the “domain” of the object or the event. The classroom is a domain; real life is another. We react to a piece of information not on its logical merit, but on the basis of which framework surrounds it, and how it registers with our social-emotional system. Logical problems approached one way in the classroom might be treated differently in daily life. Indeed, they are treated differently in daily life.” - The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Does Taleb perfectly describe the problem we have with the indoctrination thrown down by the Klan of 88? What about the problem with gender studies frauds and SANE nurse training?
Remarkably I doubt Taleb is aware of the Duke case.
Mac....
I appreciate your concern regarding litigation. But I think it is overstated. I've followed the comments on this blog over the last month or so and, frankly, don't think there is anything here that a competant attorney would find worthwhile.
Expressing an opinion is protected speech. Stating a fact, however damaging to another, is also protected speech.
I frankly would love for some low-life lawyer to pursue a claim. The counterclaim would be joy. I'd even be willing to bet that an assertion of an ethical violation could result in a saction if not a suspension of a license.
If everyone sticks to the facts, with independent third party sources, then there is no problem. If one quotes a third party source, then the third party source is the guilty party...not the one who quotes.
And in this case,...the spaghetti of facts and quotes would frankly boggle the mind of even the best civil litigator.
Frankly, I hope that some dumb fuggin lawyer takes me on. For I'd love to own their beach house. Or car. Or whatever.
One might have to consider Miss Levicy a public figure given the number of links from a Google search.
Sadly the young men have a much, much larger public exposure on Google.
As an addendum, ...
I'm starting to get really angry -- I mean nuclear pissed off -- at the lame attempts to intimidate the free expression on this blog. Various posters believe that they can invoke a clearly inadequate understanding of the law to quiet adverse opinions.
So,....
give it your best shot...
Thomas S. Inman
403 Leeds Ridge Court
Purcellville, VA 20132
If their is anyone willing to give it a go, so be it. But you better be willing to go to the mat.
I am.
And I will own your beach house when its over.
I have heard on good authority that the number of Libel/Defamation lawsuits based on internet comments that went anywhere could be rounded off to zero.
Because showing actual damage is very very hard due to the fact that no one takes such comments seriously enough to produce harm.
In other words, those here waving the idea of lawsuits around are bluffing. Just why they go to that trouble is an interesting matter.
inman 10:47 said...
...As an addendum, ...
...I'm starting to get really angry -- I mean nuclear pissed off -- at the lame attempts to intimidate the free expression on this blog. Various posters believe that they can invoke a clearly inadequate understanding of the law to quiet adverse opinions.
So,....
give it your best shot...
Thomas S. Inman
403 Leeds Ridge Court
Purcellville, VA 20132
If their is anyone willing to give it a go, so be it. But you better be willing to go to the mat.
I am.
And I will own your beach house when its over.
::
DIW bloggers be forewarned.
There is a MANDATORY Water Conservation order in place for Purcellville, VA and a beach house right about now would be a huge prize...no doubt.
::
GP
Debrah,
You go girl! Your Savvvvvy IQ allows you the privilege of being most disssssssssssssssssrespectful in a most respectful manner.
I have not read all the post,so I may be duplicating comments
to rrh at 2.34 I get your point, but the NBA has it right. They don’t care if someone is black, white, Chinese, or from Europe. They are in it to make money (win games). Actually that’s the way all of America should run its businesses and schools. Self-interest is the best equalizer. If you want the best, you won’t show favoritism, nepotism, or political correctness.
Re: rrh numbers in the academy
I have no idea how accurate his numbers are, but I would venture that before the racial set-asides were somewhat eliminated in California, it sure seemed that his figures might be close. Last summer, there were complaints that the fall class of ’06 at UCLA would only have 2% black enrollment. That comes to less than 100 blacks out of 4,000 freshmen. At San Diego the numbers are worse—only 1%. Black graduation rate is 39%. Since most are going to school on the taxpayer’s dime, that’s not a good return on our money.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=3503af14cbd88e33d0ce0647392bb707
::::::::
To 4.57am
You are right, Asians only score perfect in Math. Don’t forget, English is their second or third language—not first as it is with blacks. Besides most of them are going into that academic area, they have higher graduation rates, and they WORK.
Re 5.02 am Ronald Reagan is not the blame for the tuition increase. The taxpayers are fed up with taxes. More than 50% of California state taxes go for education. This is such a welfare state. Students in California can go to school for practically nothing. And at the campus I teach at, the cars in the student parking lot are a lot nicer, newer, and more expensive than those in the faculty lot. They walk around with their iPods, all their phones are in the $500 range, and guys like to wear Air Jordans. Maybe all the student loans are going to purchase hot stuff?! Why not, they don’t have to worry about tuition.
To 6.33am
I miss Ronald Reagan too.
7:58,
I hadn't forgotten (DUH!!!) that English was not the first language of immigrant Asians. Nor is it the first language of other immigrants, some of whom do brilliantly on both parts of the exam.
What we need to learn about this is that the US needs better mathematics teaching at the primary level.
Re: 39% African-American university graduation rate. Cite your sources!!!
On another note, can you people get off Nurse L's back? Please. She has been charged with nothing and you're LAXing her. I home that if there is any harm to her in any way, including her career--and I hope there is not--that some of you, with your nasty threats and rude comments, can be tracked down and held legally accountable. I don't know if KC is showing very good judgement allowing some of your comments to remain on line. It's not unlike the G88 taking out an announcement in the Chronicle...
3.12 Calm down. I included a site on my blog. But there are more.
3:12 You want to track someone down because they've made rude comments? We're not in Cuba.
to 3.12 You said:
Nor is it the first language of other immigrants, some of whom do brilliantly on both parts of the exam.
::::
Please site your source.
To the California Professor at 2:58 a.m.
Thanks for your support.
You would be surprised at how fast one will be called "racist", even here -- for stating facts, even without any editorial comment. But as I've said before, being called "racist" by a diversity-racist is a badge of honor for me.
Just some background. I went to college in those racially halcyon days -- after the end of segregation but before affirmative action. After graduation, I spent about 10 years in the computer business before returning to attend law school. By then, affirmative action was in full-swing and I met blacks in law school that would not have been admitted to my undergrad school.
If you are new here, you'll find the diversity-racists have two tactics: (1) of course, they'll call you "racist"; (2) they'll demand "proof" of whatever you say. My suggestion is to ignore them in either case. They seek not enlightenment.
To rrh at 4.01 Thanks for the advice. I noticed he or she did not give a site for their assertions at 3.12
The problem with the diversity crowd is that they really do harm to blacks or any student that has not earned their way into a particular school. Students that would insist on going to Cal on racial set-asides would flunk out. They were not prepared for such a rigorous school. Some of them would have done just fine if they had gone to a community college first, taken some remedial courses, and then transferred. For about the first 10 years after they were accepting blacks at Cal on affirmative action, not one (affirmative black student) had graduated. As a California homeowner, it makes me angry the way my tax dollars are spent. Of course with all these stupid majors like black studies, their graduation rates have gone up. The problem is, where to get a job ?
cp
4:36,
What sources are you demanding? The 39 % rate was one sited above. Scroll up!!!
How do we know that the "diversity crowd" harms blacks or any other student that has not earned his/her way into a particular school? How does this work with legacies? They "earned" their way into a particular school as a result of their parents' abilities/connections?
I spent a relatively long time in school (double undergraduate DEGREES, not majors, then a PhD) and I never saw these less intelligent blacks and non-whites that are mentioned on this blog. Of course, the women were not less capable, either. And, before you ask: IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY.
You do know that before the reign of Raygun, students from something like the top ten percent of high school classes were able to attend the Cal system. Some of those kids were non-white and some were women.
Yes, there is an incredible amount of racism and sexism expressed on this blog. Just because you are writing something and you don't consider yourself racist (it's not just being a Klan member or a Neo-Nazi that makes one racist), doesn't mean your statements aren't racist. Or, if you don't like that term, they are ignorant. CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!!!
2:58/4:36, The page you linked doesn't provide your 39% graduate rate figures.
There is a problem when a race or a gender is reduced to the level of category. It is dehumanizing.
Civil rights types - (Martin Luther King comes to mind with his "content of character" speech) - used to demand that treatment based upon character and ability, not by race or gender or other category. It's a fair request.
Now the request - (or demand) - is something else: that the treatement is allocated by race/sex, not by individual merit. (Note the word "allocated.")
We've come a long way to get back to nowhere, haven't we?
The funny thing about the diversity crowd is that they really aren't interested in diversity: they're interested in allocations.
The powerful in this country have been criticized for "legacy" admissions, but if you look at the kids of lots of "power-couples" these days, you'll see many children who can read at 4 years of age, speak other languages, play musical instruments and do basic math. If there's a legacy, it's a cultural legacy.
Compare those children with those of lackluster, indolent types: many of them get to kindergarten not even knowing colors. People can claim that these kids' parents are too busy working two or three low-income jobs to make ends meet, but that usually isn't the case: most have only one parent, and their father sees them as their "trophy" child. Mom drags them around and curses at them, yelling being the preferred method of correction and communication, and they learn to be angry, insolent and violent.
These are "legacies," too, of a kind. Does anybody think that the children of these vile incompetents will ever be able to compete with kids who learn French and math and grammar at 4 years of age? I feel sorry for their children. We should all feel sorrow for their children. They are our future inmates.
The parents I see who work two or three low-paying jobs (and I know a few) tend to instill the same respect and desire for education as the ones who are criticized for their affluence, and whose kids speak French: their kids can compete.
When we speak of "legacies," let's look at what the term really means: parental guidance. When we speak of "diversity," let's look at what the term really means: allocations.
Mac,
I think your 7:44 entry is offensive on many levels. It's racist and classist, IMHO. That's just for starters.
FWIW, my teen-aged son plays three musical instruments and speaks three languages other than English. If he got into a university as a "legacy," I'd throw up. That's affirmative action for people who don't need it.
7:47
Oh, did I mention race? How would you know it was race I was referring to? If you must know, I wasn't referring to race at all. These are kids in my neighborhood.
Kudos to your kid, though! Still, I would feel sorry for them, if they have you for a parent. You are so shrill and reactive! (What are you so frightened by?)
Education is the legacy I spoke of, not the pre-conceived "legacy admission" you mistakenly assumed I'd meant.
I said "legacy." Do you know what the word means, or are you so ignorant that it can mean only one thing to you? Go get a dictionary.
Maybe you can get your kid to look it up for you.
7:47 am
Bet your kid is on a swim team, too!
It's apparent that the so-called "diversity" crowd wants to make the same world Harrison Bergeron lived in
(in Kurt Vonnegut's short story by the same name.) You can read it for yourself; it is a most excellent story: Google it up - (or maybe someone will kindly post a link?)
It is a fine story about allocation.
7:58, You are exactly speaking about educational legacies, even if you won't admit it. You didn't need to mention race. The implications were clear.
My kids seem happy enough to have me as a parent. Of course, they haven't--in my opinion, luckily--met people with opinions like yours, so perhaps they don't know what they're missing.
And, thanks for the kind suggestiong that they look up a word in a dictionary, since, in your opinion, I can't. Small mind, eh? You disagree with me, you attack.
Rottweiler in your genes or just garden variety Doberman?!
And, no, Mac, not swim team. Hate swimming. Other sports. I did swim team, however.
7:58:
You must have missed out on the educational legacy or which you speak, since you're so ignorant in your treatment of others. Courtesy is also an educational legacy...
7:08 -- a copy/paste from the 39% reference:
Then there's the added problem of keeping black students on the campus, even after they're admitted. Federal figures report that only 39 percent of blacks get their degree. That's compared to 57 percent for white students and 44 percent for Hispanics. A 2004 Education Trust report found a quarter of schools have gaps between whites and blacks of 20 points or more
You still have trouble reading:
I didn't mention race, and I am stating that the old blueblood educational legacies have been replaced - (to some extent) - with a new kind of legacy. Perhaps you are a participant in this kind of nouveau-legacy. It would appear that way.
What race did you say you are?
Frankly, don't bother: I don't care.
Dear-person-who-claims-to-be courteous - (*right after labelling me a racist and classist) - you are showing your underwear. Better let down your skirt, honey: you're way too stiff.
7:47
OK, let's get back to the point: you haven't responded to my thesis, that parental involvement is the new version of the word "legacy." (Not speaking of the blueblooded version: they don't live in my neighborhood anyway.)
I've presented three examples of parental legacy, all of whom are real people, all of whom are both black and white - (since I'm not referring to single-set examples, but more than one family or whatever-you-want-to-call their arrangement.)
It was you who chose to attack the thesis, based upon your own presumptions and assumptions.
(Kinda Yorkie-like, wouldja agree?)
Indeed, if your teenage kid plays three musical instruments and speaks three languages other than English, they have been introduced to this kind of legacy already.
And I'm not complaining: they have a step up on the kids of the parent who does nothing but sit her kid in front of the television while she talks on the cellphone with friends or entertains her latest procreative partner.
Do you think the child of the latter has much of a chance in life? What kind of legacy do they have, will they have, will they leave to their own children?
You've obviously taken care of your own business: why are you so threatened? Is it guilt?
TO 2:58am
in re black acceptance rates to elite institutions without affirmative action
I can only guess how many blacks would be admitted to places like Harvard without affirmative action. I do know that there are 0% top black scorers on SAT, GMAT, LSAT, and MAT.
I own a small, extremely elite software company outside of Austin, Texas, and I have many friends in cognitively demanding professions like architecture and mechanical engineering. They tell me that since they can attract the creme de la creme to their companies, they find that most blacks don't even make it into the 2d tier. They are forced to hire blacks when the government mandates it.
I totally disagree with the claim that 10% of blacks now admitted to elite institutions would be "legitimate" without affirmative action. The data do not support that contention.
TO 12:11AM--
Thanks, Mad Hatter!
Debrah
re. 9:19 a.m.,
I think it's humorous that my statement that "90% of black professors and students at top-flight colleges are there due to government mandate" is now being questioned on grounds that my "90%" figure is too low.
Btw, I wonder if the critic with "two undergraduate DEGREES not majors, and a Ph.D." will start demanding "cites" instead of "sites".
R.R.H.
TO RRH--
Glenn Close?
Dear G/d, perish the thought.
Glenn Close=mediocre actress, blond--(I'm very brunette), she's ugly, IMO, and she's certainly older than the diva Debrah.
LOL!!! No way. I wouldn't allow it.
Please, don't try out for a job in central casting!
Debrah
Debrah, keep in mind that I didn't know what you look like. That said ....
Hmm, unfortunately Amanda Peet is probably too young ... How about Sigourney Weaver or Sean Young?
RRH
RRH
Sean Young?
Y'mean the Sean Young in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective with the rippingly piercing voice?
Y'know who looks a little like her? Check out the angry woman at Nifey's hearing, sitting behind Reade and the others...
Good actress, but scary voice!
Debrah, say it ain't so!
mac, well, who would you suggest to play the roles of Divah and Inman in the movie version of this blog? Feel free to add any other characters.
RRH
To RRH, 9:19, etc.,
I find your fascination with the alleged inferiority of blacks/single parent families, etc., amazing.
Some of the best students I've had come from single parent families. I guess mommie wasn't on the cell phone. Maybe, just maybe, mommie and/or daddie talk on cell phones when there are two parents.
If you want to make these sweeping generalizations, based in one case on individual examples, please do tell us what you employ for sources. How does one extrapolite?
This blog reminds me of Lake Woebegone, except it isn't the parents who think their children are all above average, although that, too, but the bloggers who think they are...
TO "mac" and "RRH"--
Well....I can only help you out by using names to which others have alluded when discussing--or cursing--me. LIS!
Susan Lucci--although she's older as well, but she looks young.
Andie McDowell--but she's a terrible actress with a drawl.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus--but I'm taller.
And I have been compared to Cher since I was 12 years old. LOL!!! LOL!!!
(Is she dead yet?)
Sean Young is an interesting possibility. She's the right age range and looks ok, but she's a stalker. James Woods had to get a restraining order against her back in the '90s.
There are so many, but never Sigourney Weaver. UGH!
Debrah
11:19
You're throwing us all together, and you don't make sense. But here's a response, anyway:
I also know a woman who is what you might call a "welfare mom." She has few choices, due to the violence and depravity of her childrens' father. One of her choices she's made is to instill a work ethic in her kids, and an ethic of education; her kids are excellent students. They have a legacy of education. Their mom is caught between a rock and a hard place, but she is diligent. It's a lot harder for her, though, than if she had a decent husband.
Meanwhile, also in my neighborhood, there is a mother who is busy training her children to be beggars. They will surely succeed at this endeavor, (and may even one day be Tammy Faye's replacement!) Mommy-dearest threw the bread we gave her for her "hungry children" - (she asked for money for bread, so we gave her unopened 12-grain bread, 2 loaves) - in the street. Yup, we found it there, unopened, unused (except for 2 pieces missing in one of the loaves.) Mommy was mad because we didn't give her money, instead. Her "disabled" kids make her more money than my wife and I combined. We operate our own business.
I wonder if you live in such a neighborhood? Our property values are mostly around 80 K, lots of them rentals. It's easy to sit in judgement when you sit perched in an ivory mansion.
I wonder where the mommy lives, whose child speaks three languages (other than English) and plays three musical instruments? Where do you live?
11:19
I'm 9:19, and my first name is Peter. My analysis was not intended as an indictment of black "inferiority," especially given the fact that the concept of "inferiority" is not scientific, and therefore meaningless. I was simply making the point that at the elite level, blacks show no evidence of being able to compete, from both a statistical and observational standpoint, with other groups. Nor would I maintain that whites and East Asians are "inferior" runners. They just don't perform as well as blacks at elite levels.
Debrah: Sean Young, in "Blade Runner," was arguably the most extraordinarily beautiful character in the history of cinema, including the exquisite Audrey Hepburn. Young's deep voice is incredibly erotic.
As to your characterization of Glenn Close as a "mediocre actress"--you've got to be kidding me! Her portrayal of an insanely jealous woman in "Fatal Attraction" is 1 of the truly great female performances in the history of cinema. She continues to enjoy a most distinguished career, and is well respected both in Hollywood and on Broadway. I suggest you Google some of the incredibly kind comments about her performances fron Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber.
TO 11:19AM--
Let me jump in here...only for a drive-by...
If you believe that single parent households--especially if low-income--are a breeding ground for raising children who will excel, then you are running a hoax.
Of course there are always going to be exceptions, but go into any poor black neighborhood--or poor white or Hispanic neighborhood--where the parents are MIA and tell me what you see.
Pretending that things aren't the way they are has been the molded Liberal agenda for decades. Many have made nice careers out of perpetuating illiteracy, illegitimacy, and built-in-excuses.
Debrah
TO 11:40AM--
I know. I remember Fatal Attraction, but Close only looked good in that film because she had so much cosmetic work and make-up applied...along with having her hair frizzed out to look more sexy...rather than the skinned rat she usually resembles.
I just don't like her for some reason. No doubt she is talented in many ways; however, if she's in a film, I would not rush out to see it.
In Fatal Attraction, my favorite was the wife, Anne Archer.
Debrah
Yes, Anne Archer is a classically beautiful woman, and Close isn't. Close is an actress, not a babe. And she wasn't Adrian Lyne's 1st choice for the role of Alex (forgot who it was; this actress turned it down because of the nudity). But I do know that Lyne was blown away by Close's performance, and thanked the heavens above that this other actress turned it down.
Peter
Both Barbara Hershey and Debra Winger turned down the role of Alex--and both regretted it.
I agree. Close was magnificent. That scene where Close accuses Douglas of being a bad boy was brilliant. Both Close and Douglas went to the same elite prep school in Connecticut. Close comes from a very prestigious family. One of her relatives is Preston Sturges.
Debrah,
The problem is that among the smartest, highest-achieving children, young adults, I know are those raised in single-parent households. I think it's the quality of care, not necessarily the quanitity of caregivers, that matters in how a child/children are raised.
An aside, I should think that those of you who are so offended by AA should remember that it goes to deserving poor...And, that many of the elite universities will provide funds to get good, but poor, kids through their university.
To Jack at 7:07:
Alas, you are correct. Angela Davis HAS to see her own racism. It's just that, frankly my dear, she doesn't give a damn.
Speaking of not seeing, I am astounded at those people on this site who are actually defending Levicy's lies. How on earth anyone could possibly not see the proof of Levicy's lies, bias, hate, etc. is beyond me.
Sigh, yet another reason why KC calls this Hoax 'wonderland'.
KC--Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the discussion of actresses OT? I do hope that Alf plays MAC, however! ;-p
9:19/11:40 Peter,
I doubt you'll get a reasonable response from 11:19 - (they never answer my reasonable questions, either, when I pose them.)
Personally, I think culture matters more than race. I'm sure that ancestral characteristics play some role in our development - (I have lots of personal experience there, but won't go into it) - but Debrah 11:42 pretty much hit the nail on the head, and the converse is also true: put a child of any race in a good educational environment, with two parents and you have a much, much greater chance for top-tier success. I've seen it.
I'm surprised you like Sean Young's voice.
I wonder about the upbringing of Grant Farred and Karla Holloway and others - (Holloway's son is said to be a criminal.) I know geniuses in the black community, I know how they were raised...I wonder how these folks were raised? Certainly, they are well above the street level. Bigoted as Lubiano is, delusional as Farred seems to be, they're at least not peddling flesh nor drugs.
Ah, the subtle racism of lowered expectations! I think I answered my own musings.
One thing I know is: the black folk who have achieved much usually did it in spite of low expectations, and they performed well because of their parents' high expectations!
Correction: Quantity.
12:15,
Don't most children achieve to meet their parents' expectations?
12:16
Yup.
12:12
Affirmative action goodies go to upper-middle-class blacks, not the poor. You didn't know that?
Professor Johnson, I'm certain, intended the term "wonderland" to be understood in an ironic context. "Wonderland" is defined as "a marvelous imaginary realm."
Duke and Durham are neither imaginary nor marvelous.
Mac
Why is "racist" to have lower expectations for sub-performing groups?
If you were the developer of ground zero, would you break your back trying to unearth a qualified black architect?
Assume you found 1: how would that person compare to Frank Gehry or Lord Foster?
Anonymous said...
12:12
Affirmative action goodies go to upper-middle-class blacks, not the poor. You didn't know that?
8/11/07 12:26 PM
Yes, among the silly things that 12:12 said, the one about "AA goes to the deserving poor" was probably the silliest. And btw, increasingly AA doesn't even go to the children of rich American blacks anymore -- black kids from the Caribbean and even Africa outscore them on the tests. So we have the ironic situation, when we consider that some of these Africans are descendants of slave-traders who sold to the Europeans, that AA now favors the descendants of the enslavers over the descendants of the liberators -- think of the descendants of dead Union soldiers from the Civil War.
RRH
And btw, 12:12 etc., some fine NBA players have been white. Is that a reason to force the NBA to "look like America"?
RRHamilton
I love your casting picks -- that is why I posed the question. I have mental characters in my mind for most of the players in this LAX story. However, you DIW originals are the last ones I need to populate my mind pictures. And although I suspect you are very close to the truth, I have to love Inmans 6:02 response! He never disappoints...
12:36
At one time, it was fashionable to have low expectations for the Irish. Fortunately, Irish parents didn't continue to believe what the Brits expected of the Irish - or Scottish. Do you think the children of Irish immigrants are sub-performing?
I am in hopes that the black middle and upper classes will abandon the lowered expectations of people like Jesse "keep 'em poor 'n stupid" Jackass, as well as the substandard, troglodytic musical tastes that permeate the airwaves and the culture.
What's been done in the past 30 years has undone the advances of the early civil rights generation: in some ways, progress has not only been halted, it's been reversed.
IMO, sports have helped make things worse: the sports that pay a lot of money to professionals have helped give the poorer communities a false hope and false direction: collegiate practitioners of NON-professional sports tend to be academically better prepared than those who use schools as "farm-teams." Examples include lacrosse, swimming and cross country. If I were the parent of a black child, I would prefer that my child keep his eyes on the page, not on the field, and would encourage participation in one of the sports I mentioned (including swimming - and as a former swim coach and Masters swimmer, I know that race is not a barrier there, either.)
My point: culture matters.
Regretfully, 12:26PM is quite accurate.
Debrah
Looks like I missed some action -- I usually do.
What's the difference between "This post has been removed by the blog administrator." and "This post has been removed by the author."? Is it the latter when KC deletes his own comments?
My bad for asking the OT actor/actress question earlier. But I think it is extrememly interesting the difference of opinions -- how one's Debrah is Glenn Close and another's Andie MacDowell. Interesting study, anyway. I had Inman pegged as someone more tortured, though, than those mentioned. (that's not a negative, by the way....)
To the 3.51:
If it says removed by blog administrator, I removed it.
If it says removed by author, it was removed by whoever originally commented, not by me.
4:02
Perhaps some have not understood the irony. Or perhaps I do not understand.
I am tortured, but only by my wife. (And that also is not a negative, if one appreciates masochism -- fortunately, I do not.)
Inman 10:37 pm
" I'd even be willing to bet that an assertion of an ethical violation could result in a saction if not a suspension of a license."
Not if he's licensed in North Carolina!
Sorry - that's really unfair - I know of no jurisdiction anywhere in the US where lawyers are punished in any serious manner for making frivolous claims.
3:51
I posted an alert, and when the banned poster was removed, I deleted my post. Guess that means I'm a snitch. (In reality, I'm Kermit - or a reformed flying monkey from the Wizard of Oz.)
Mac
Post a Comment