Having milked all they could from their anti-lacrosse jihad—and refusing, of course, to engage in any critical self-reflection about their actions—extremists among the Group of 88 and their allies are moving on to other protesting endeavors.
Today’s N&O reveals that Anne (“Group of 88 for Credit”) Allison and Orin Starn were recently cited for trespassing and given a court date on the misdemeanor charge. They allegedly planted protest signs in the landscaping outside an exhibition at the Southpoint Mall. (Yes, this is the same Orin Starn who suggested that the lacrosse players’ citations for underage drinking implied some sort of moral flaw.) Their new cause? Opposition to “Bodies ... The Exhibition.”
Several other protesters, including Starn’s wife, Robin Kirk, were quoted in the N&O article as celebrating the professors’ flouting of the law. It’s good to see that—as in their dealings with the Duke Faculty Handbook—the anti-lacrosse extremists continue to believe that they don’t need to follow the rules when engaged in politically correct crusades.
[Update, 5.28pm: At a previous protest, Kirk, whose webpage states that she "teaches at Duke University and coordinates the Duke Human Rights Initiative," responded in the following way:
When the guard asked for my name to write a citation, I refused to give it. At the time, I was seated at one of the pleasant outdoor tables reading Marshall Meyer’s “You Are My Witness,” a book of this famous Argentine rabbi’s thoughts on human rights and the Argentine dirty war.
Believe me, nothing could have been more fun or satisfying!
Once he trotted off for reinforcements, I collected the teens who were the cause of my delay and skedaddled. ]
Meanwhile, people at Vanderbilt are awakening to the realities of Houston Baker’s performance in the case, thanks to a piece by Justin Offermann. Offermann asks an unanswerable question: how could Vanderbilt describe the person who called lacrosse players “farm animals” and penned the racist March 2006 open letter “one of the most wide-ranging intellectuals in America”?
Hat tip: T.K.
So, apparently the 88's Orin Starn and Anne Allison care more about the rights of dead bodies, than about the rights of Duke students.
ReplyDeleteAll of these 88 (and other potbangers) need to be constantly exposed to the public for their role in the Duke case. (UPI will certainly help with that). They have no credibility with anything they stick their noses in. They've already exposed their rotten natures.
ReplyDeleteLOL!!!
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post!
So glad I got back in time for this one.
Very, very soon the majority of the public will become wise to these clowns.
They are, indeed, their own worst enemies.
As someone who has taken several semesters of Gross Anatomy (undergrad,) participated in (and helped instruct) workshops of the same, I understand people who find the study problematic. That is, I understand their personal antipathy, their gut-reaction.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, for those of us who use such knowledge to benefit other people, to improve their well-being and health, there is no substitute for hands-on human anatomy. DVDs just don't do it: you can't palpate what's on a DVD.
As far as exhibits like the one mentioned goes: if you don't like it, don't go. The same people who object to such exhibits continually tell the rest of us to turn the channel if we find something offensive on the tube (like excessive violence, Sam Peckinpah-style, or pornography, Britney Spears pics etc.) If watching a woman give birth gives you the willies, don't watch.
Meanwhile, we don't see the same protesters in front of the mis-named "Christ Hospital" in Chicago, where the practice was - at one time - to allow newborns to die, alone and in filthy environs (later changed to a warm room with nice Musak for the babies to die to.) We haven't seen much of the Starns when it came to the now-illegal pithing procedure known as "partial birth abortion," either.
Hypocrites! Hypocrites, all!
Starn is the worst kind of hypocrite: if he has a problem with human rights in China, he should tell it to Biliary Clinton. There is a history there, from that administration: Biliary allowed his deportation goons to throw an African woman back to her gentital-mutilating family, refusing her reasonable request for sanctuary. I don't know what's happened to the woman, but there weren't many protests from the Starns (nor the rest of the 88) in that case, and in others like it.
Hypocrites! Bloody f'ing hypocrites!
I'm still somewhat amazed that the good folks at Vanderbilt haven't convulsed now that Duke's former faculty excrement--Houston Baker--graces Vanderbilt's "learned halls." Vanderbilt's trustees and administration surely knew what they were getting w/ Baker (and his just-as-wacky spouse). Is this, in fact, what they wanted? If so, why would student and alums stand for this?
ReplyDeleteRe: Anne Allison and Orin Starn's latest piece of "work." When will Duke administrators or Trustees finally decide "enough-is-enough" with these idiots? Is it *ever* enough at Duke? I mean, nobody *requires* that Duke (or any other school) have a cultural anthro dept or elevate AAAS to dept status. Why would anyone do such acts that demean Duke as a serious university and lessen its reputation?
ReplyDeleteI have to say that the "outrage" about Starn and Allison is just silly. They engaged in a public protest, got charged with a misdemeanor, and apparently are going to court as charged. They aren't suggesting that "they don't need to follow the rules;" or at least haven't yet. We'll see what happens in court. They were charged with breaking the law and they haven't (yet) argued the law doesn't apply to them.
ReplyDeleteI think their cause is a silly one, but I also can't understand how it reflects on their qualification to be members of the Duke faculty, unless we're going fire every faculty member charged with a misdemeanor or who gets a traffic ticket. Advocating for silly causes (right or left) outside of the classroom is not a reason for questioning someone's qualifications to be a college professor.
And, it should be noted, they haven't been convicted yet, only charged - shouldn't we be presuming their innocence? Hmmm?
To Mac: what asylum cases have been rejected under Bush?
ReplyDeleteKC,
ReplyDeleteI think someone at Vanderbilt misspelled something; what they meant to say about Houston Baker is that he's "one of the most wild, raging intellectuals in America."
3:03
ReplyDeleteI don't know; perhaps you'll enlighten us?
To 2:25
ReplyDeleteWith the on-going search for a new chancellor to replace the politically-correct Gee, the school sent out surveys to alumni wanting to know their opinions about the desired characteristics for the new "boss". My survey did bring up the "what were you thinking" question vis a vis Baker. According to a variety of sources, Gee, who was one of the highest paid University heads in the country ($1.2 - $1.4 million), was encouraged to relocate after his exposure in the WSJ (his wife was a particular source of embarrassment). Gee took a vicious salary cut moving back to his old Ohio State job. He is also getting a divorce from his "crazy" wife.
Baker is a short timer - the atmosphere is just not conducive to his particular venom and modus operendi. Political correctness does exist at VU however the vast majority of the alumni are moderate to extremely conservative and, as a whole, are very noisy. Ultimately, the question that's going to be asked is "What was Baker thinking when he accepted his position"?
Oh Orin, baby!
ReplyDeleteYou are such a renaissance man.
And your alpha male penchant for protest drives me wild!
Why not come on in to Wonderland and we'll let you explore our creek beds.
You little mufti anthropologist, you!
TO Steven Horwitz. Actions speak lowder than words. It is just another data point in understand what kind of defective people make up the overall composition of the hate-88.
ReplyDeleteGiven the effort little Orin put into slandering and libeling the lacrosse players, making it seem as if they were not concerned with abiding by rules and the law....
ReplyDelete....to see him openly disregard the law---expecting to wear such ridiculous behavior as a granola badge of honor---illustrates once again how disgusting these people really are.
At least Allison and Orin Starn have transferred their jihad from living lacrosse athletes over to people and critters who are dead.
ReplyDeleteThat should bring some comfort to the parents of lacrosse athletes.
Since Houston A. Baker's CV is missing from the Vanderbilt web site, perhaps he is over in Durham helping Allison and Orin while checking on the accuracy of his CV.
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/iGxZW8
::
GP
To Steven Horwitz:
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you make excellent points, but overlook KC's point. He was only reminding the readers that Orin Starn had "suggested that the lacrosse players' citations for underage drinking implied some sort of moral flaw." If a citation for underage drinking - a minor charge - implies a moral flaw, then would not any other misdemeanor charge? Of course it would not, but for consistency's sake, Starn would have to argue that it does. But Starn's behavior in the whole Lacrosse case does show a deep moral flaw - one of prejudgment.
KC also pointed out that the professors were "celebrating" breaking the law for a cause in which they believe. They must have, therefore, blindly believed in their cause in celebrating the due process violations for the lacrosse players in ignoring the Duke Faculty Handbook. Agree with them or not, at least they are consistent.
There is a piece under NYT most e-mailed section today which some may find interesting and relevant. Does KC have 'em thinking?
ReplyDeleteTitle-
Essay: Revisiting the Canon Wars. Rachel Donadio.
(I would link if I knew how) (:
H-S editorial:
ReplyDeleteSettlement OK, but within reason
The Herald-Sun
Sep 16, 2007
The lacrosse case is winding down, with just a few loose ends remaining.
One of the loose ends is a question, which goes like this: How much were former defendants Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans damaged by the mistakes of the Durham Police Department? Please provide your answer in the form of dollars, followed by six zeros.
The former Duke students and their attorneys have provided the City of Durham with their suggested answer. Sources told The Herald-Sun they are seeking $10 million each, $30 million in all.
The final amount will have implications for every Durham resident. City Council members who can't talk about the lawsuit still shake their heads with frustration when the subject comes up. That's probably because the city has an insurance policy that has a maximum payment of $5 million with a $500,000 deductible. Any more than that would have to come from taxpayers.
There have been understandable howls of protest from residents, many of whom are Duke fans and supported the players' cause. They want to know what they did wrong.
We can sympathize. It seems clear that the police department made serious errors. On the other hand, $30 million is too much. Much too much.
It's no excuse, but the Police Department's biggest mistake was probably a lack of leadership. It appears DPD officials turned the case over to then District Attorney Mike Nifong, who, as we know, pursued it like Ahab chased the white whale.
Nifong has been disbarred, stripped of his law license and forced out of his job. Now the Police Department is on the hot seat.
The whole story hasn't come out -- the threatened lawsuit stopped the work of a city appointed committee that was looking into the case. But much of what happened is common knowledge. Everyone agrees the DPD allowed a badly flawed lineup to be used to implicate the players, which, as it turned out, was Nifong's only evidence.
The players' attorneys make other charges as well, about a possible false arrest and alleged evidence tampering. In a trial, those charges would be argued in court.
There's no doubt the former defendants were hurt. Their college careers and their lives were interrupted, their lacrosse season was ruined, their reputations were harmed and they were the subject of intense national media scrutiny. But how much of that is the DPD's fault? The players have already received millions -- the exact amount is a secret -- from Duke. And was the damage to their reputations lessened by the public declaration of their innocence? And how much damage does national media scrutiny cause?
In a civil trial, all those questions would be hashed out in court.
We also know that others who were the victims of prosecutorial conduct received far less. Darryl Hunt, for example, falsely accused of murder, spent nearly 20 years in prison and received less than $2 million in compensation. How does his suffering compare to the players, who spent no time in jail?
The players have also asked the city to institute reforms to enhance the Police Department's independence and prevent such incidents from occurring again. We would heartily endorse such reforms.
On the financial side, the city's insurance company is now in the drivers' seat. We agree that there should be a settlement with the players. Given what's happened, it's appropriate. We only ask that it be reasonable.
I have to say that the "outrage" about Starn and Allison is just silly.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm not outraged, nor do I find their behavior "outrageous".
However, I do find them hypocritical.
If you're going to condemn others for rule-breaking...especially something as utterly common as underage drinking...then why would you feel at liberty to (allegedly)selectively break other rules??
"Do as I say, not as I do."
I always thought that 30 mill was a mite low...
ReplyDeleteThat article in the N&O about the protest has Orin Starn as a professor in Duke's divinity school.
ReplyDeleteAre all the 88 urchins also associated with the divinity school in some way?
Little Orin is a cultural anthropologist--a subject that can be exhausted in one semester.
Wonder what he does with the rest of the time.
A neighbor of mine went to see the Bodies exhibit and thoroughly enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteAn increasing number of editorials trying to suggest that $10 million is too much point to the fact that the players settled with Duke for an undisclosed amount. My question: will this really affect at all the settlement with Durham? Should it? I mean, suppose that I am a pedestrian who gets hit by two drivers, both driving equally irresponsibly and both equally responsible for my pain and suffering. Should the second of the two drivers to settle only be responsible for the difference between a "reasonable" total settlement amount and the amount paid by the first driver? Why? Is the second driver less responsible for their own wrongdoing, the larger the first driver's pockets are?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that 1:47 said exactly what was on my mind. Starn was an enabler for people being falsely charged with serious crimes, and that makes him a bad guy, in my book.
ReplyDeleteThat he is an out-and-out hypocrite makes things even worse -- but not any more surprising. As F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "Character is fate."
"Who is really concerned about whether a woman was actually raped or not?"
ReplyDelete... WOW.
KC, you're in a position to tell us, is this actually what Houston Baker wrote in an e-mail? If so, it should be widely publicized, because what other quote could ever make so abundantly clear that Baker and his ilk were out to exploit Mangum, not to engage in even misguided support for her.
To the 4.16:
ReplyDeleteYes. Stuart and I have a copy of the e-mail, and we quote from it in the book.
But how much of that is the DPD's fault?
ReplyDeleteHow absolutely naive. We are talking about rogue cops gleefully joy riding with an unscrupulous DA. They knew more than anyone besides Nifong that the case was without merit and continued.
I can't believe that at any point the cops couldn't have through their DPD channels blown the whistle on Nifong.
The city needs to shine a light on every encounter those cops had with the public long before the Duke case.
30 million is no big deal in terms of damages. Call it the Durham stupidity tax.
Bill - I read your post on LS about Levicy being charged with fraud as she signed her name in the wrong place. As the Physician did the same thing on the same sheet of paper, does Manly get charged with fraud or just the nurse?
ReplyDeleteDear H-S Editors,
ReplyDeleteYou tell us, "We agree that there should be a settlement with the players. Given what's happened, it's appropriate. We only ask that it be reasonable." Then you use your unique privelege to opine on your wholly-owned Editorial pages, saying, "$30 million is too much. Much too much."
Nice that you think so. Others might disagree - the three defendant lacrosse players for starters, and some of us out here who still believe in civil rights and due process. But your dazzling Editorial pages have been noted over the past sixteen months or so printing opinion after opinion in solemn support of one Mike Nifong, in what you determined was his pursuit of justice.
You now tell us, following some pretty good factual reasons why these events fell out as they did, that "Nifong has been disbarred, stripped of his law license and forced out of his job. Now the Police Department is on the hot seat".
So your long support of Nifong and his unresisting Police Department was flawed to say the least. What does that say about your opinion concerning the size of the judgement requested from Durham, based on the legal actions that you did consider reasonable for so long?
Time for an upward revision of that "much too much" notion.
Makes sense that Redpath, the bored housewife from Cary, would find some allies among the Degener88 at Duke.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the work of these Leftist social "scientists" and humanities types is a manifestation of their neuroses, narcissism, and need for moral exhibitionism.
I take Redpath at her word that "Bodies" bothered her. But, most of us confront things that run counter to our preferences every day. We say "no thanks" and get on with our lives. We are not so self-absorbed that we feel the need to suck everyone else into our self-inflicted misery.
SAVANT
It's a good thing Starn and Allison weren't arrested by Officer Mark Gottlieb. You know how he treats Dukies! Or is that just students?
ReplyDeleteto clarencedarrow and 2:25
ReplyDeleteAs an academic, Gee has established his career by "failing upward." He has served as president of five universities, moving on after a few years in response to pressure from those universities' boards.
On the whole, boards are reluctant to fire presidents. I have no first-hand knowledge about the circumstances of his departure at Ohio State, but I am certain of that he was forced out of both the University of Colorado and Brown.
Among his fellow university presidents, he is the subject of jokes.
I have no fond feeling for Gee after he hired Baker but he did return to Ohio. As Ohio hired him back - they knew what they were getting.
ReplyDeleteDuke doesn't have student criminals; it has faculty ones.
ReplyDeleteAnd Steven, this is not a "traffic ticket". A traffic ticket is a class-C misdemeanor; criminal trespass (which I'm sure is the charge here) is a class-A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. Compare, for instance, criminal contempt, for which Nifong was convicted: that's (the equivalent of) a class-B misdemeanor.
Nifong got 1/30th of his possible jail sentence. The outlaw profs deserve no less: 1/30th of 365 days is about 12 days. Twelve days in jail seems to me a minimum sentence for these profs -- if found guilty, of course.
"I take Redpath at her word that "Bodies" bothered her. But, most of us confront things that run counter to our preferences every day. We say "no thanks" and get on with our lives. We are not so self-absorbed that we feel the need to suck everyone else into our self-inflicted misery."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
The woman is bored and overweight from staying home in the kitchen too long.
Too much time on her hands has engendered navel-gazing....taken to the nth degree.
She's now spending her time on more exciting pursuits--aligning with Kirk and Starn.
LOL!!!
Steven, I wrote above before noticing this in KC's blog: "Several other protesters, including Starn’s wife, were quoted in the N&O article as celebrating the professors’ flouting of the law."
ReplyDeleteForty Days. And if they want to keep "celebrating" their criminal activities, we in the legal community -- having just jailed one of our own for far less an offense -- can find some "creative methods" for teaching them that the law is not to be contemptuously flouted, even by "persons of tenure".
RRH
Savant wins the award for the best nickname for the Group of 88 so far on the blog.
ReplyDeleteDegener88
Cracks me up...
ES Duke 1990
Article on Starn and his wife Protest
ReplyDeleteMrs Redpath sounds like a Victorian spinster having an attack of the vapors. She needs to go back to work.
ReplyDelete4:25 -- Just Levicy. She was the one stupid enough to open her big mouth.
4:16 -- Sadly, it was never about rape. It was about elections, agendas, and evenutally cover-up. That loops back to Levicy. She's just one of the criminals who engaged in the cover up.
"Much of the work of these Leftist social "scientists" and humanities types is a manifestation of their neuroses, narcissism, and need for moral exhibitionism"
ReplyDeleteSAVANT says it much better'n me. I always just thought they were mad at their Daddies.
"...They want to know what they did wrong.
ReplyDeleteWe can sympathize. It seems clear that the police department made serious errors. On the other hand, $30 million is too much. Much too much."
My, my..... This "newspaper" leader of the Durham/Duke lynch mob has finally determined the measure of "excess"...
By far too late.
Now is the time for the folks of Durham - a majority of whom elected Nifong, hired the Chief of Police and his goons -- and were members of the pot banging mob who set out to literally lynch "them white boys"...
Very serious criminal actions REQUIRE very serious consequences...
I for one, would cheer the financial bankruptcy of Durham to match their moral and intellectual bankruptcy..
The "good folks" of Durham exercised their "democratic rights to free speech" -- now the consequences of that "speech" by the majority will effect ALL of Durham...
Funny -- that's how it works....
That is PRECISELY why folks need to be careful what/who they vote for --- they may get it.
Steven, I wrote above before noticing this in KC's blog: "Several other protesters, including Starn’s wife, were quoted in the N&O article as celebrating the professors’ flouting of the law."
ReplyDeleteNowhere in that article is there any evidence that Starn and Allison celebrated their flouting of the law.
Here's the only passage that involves any celebrating:
Two of the professors returned and planted their signs in landscaping outside the exhibition. Starn and Anne Allison, chair of Duke’s cultural anthropology department, were cited for trespassing and given a court date on the misdemeanor charge.
“Wow, that’s great,” Redpath says.
Goodtree leans back in his chair. “That kicks things up a notch,” he says.
Isn’t it ironic, Kirk says, that the mirage of Southpoint’s main street dissolves as soon as someone tries to exercise free speech there?
Redpath and Goodtree celebrate it but there is NOTHING to suggest the same of the other two. Kirk's comment, though perhaps silly, is not celebratory.
Sorry, but I'll need some actual evidence that Starn and Allison celebrated before I retract my original statement.
"Darryl Hunt, for example, falsely accused of murder, spent nearly 20 years in prison and received less than $2 million in compensation."
ReplyDeleteLOL
1. Darryl Hunt probably did the murder.*
2. There was zero evidence of any police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the Hunt case.
3. Given his lifestyle as a (at minimum!) small-time crook and pimp of underage girls, probably being in prison for 19 years is the only thing that kept him alive.
4. The city council voted to give him $1.6 million without him even suing for it. The reason he didn't sue is because it's likely the city's insurer would've proved (for the third time) that Hunt did the murder.
*The claim that Hunt was "exonerated" by DNA evidence is based on the fact that some sperm found on the rape-murder victim's corpse was matched to another man. However, the police theory of the case was that two or more men attacked and killed the woman. At least five eye-witnesses identified Hunt as one of the killers. Hunt had no alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the crime (he did put on alibi testimony, which he knew was a lie at the time of trial). The most critical testimony, according to police, was given by Hunt's 14-year-old "girlfriend" and prostitute; however before trial the girl completely changed her testimony, apparently after being threatened with her life.
As the Winston-Salem newspaper has noted, "DNA testing proved that Hunt did not rape Sykes"; it did not prove that he did not murder her.
Stephen's comment was written before I did the addition to the post above, with Robin Kirk's item.
ReplyDelete"Isn’t it ironic," Kirk says, "that the mirage of Southpoint’s main street dissolves as soon as someone tries to exercise free speech there?"
ReplyDelete----------
Kirk is no dope -- she knows better. It's not really ironic; it is settled law.
The issue of (claimed) free-speech right to protest at shopping malls, has been argued and appealed all up and down through the courts, decades ago. And Kirk knows perfectly well that the mall has a right to prohibit all such demonstrations on their property.
And the mall is correct to do so. Otherwise, you couldn't shop without being mobbed by nut-jobs of all descriptions, shoving signs and pamphlets in your face. Including nut-jobs like Starn and Allison.
And I didn't see KC's update, which is clearly Kirk celebrating.
ReplyDeleteSteven, ok, then we can agree that if they want to show contrition for their crime then the 12 days (plus probation to deter future criminal activities) would be appropriate. If they want to act like jerks who think they are above the law, however, then we need to think about something more severe.
ReplyDeleteBTW, KC, any chance we can see the booking mugshots?
RRH
"Once he trotted off for reinforcements, I collected the teens who were the cause of my delay and skedaddled."
ReplyDeleteThis Kirk woman is such an insipid and smarmy piece of work.
No wonder she and little Orin found one another.
Yuck!
One small note of caution about the Redpath issue- I saw the Bodies Exhibition once and had a palpable feeling of unease throughout. I asked the young woman who had positioned herself at the FAQ booth where the bodies came from. She pretty much replied the same as the linked article. I was glad none of my dead relatives bodies were represented there.
ReplyDeleteRe: 3:46
ReplyDeleteYOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU? Have you read the book?
You want a settlement to be "reasonable"? Please tell us, anon, what that means?
You're ticked because the players did not suffer adequately to "earn" more money than the $30 million?
What if it is no longer mainly about the players, but about the absolutely stupid, irresponsible, unrelenting voters ( who returned Nifong yet AGAIN, when they should have known better), and the DPD, and the city "fathers" who did nothing??? What if there is not enough money in all of Durham or Duke to give back what was stolen from those of us who have, in the past, loved and identified with either or both of them? Like complicity, if not downright conspiracy with Duke University for stealing our pride in our university, and our illusion that our criminal justice system really was designed around the BASIC premise of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?
I guarantee you if the guys were BLACK, and had had their civil rights violated by Durham the way these guys have that you would have rioting in your streets and demonstrators from around the world.
Reasonable? I doubt that the guys who are the "figureheads" of the suit will see much of the settlement. By the time the legal fees are paid and the guys repay the debt their families had to go into to fight this thing ( I am assuming this... I have no hard data on this) I doubt the guys end up with enough to have made it worth the trouble.
But I, who had two children born in Durham, and who went to school at Duke, am so D**** mad at the idiots in that town that I wish the guys were suing for $30 million apiece!
Yeah, I realize that probably most of the nut cases who re-elected Nifong won't be the ones whose taxes will go up to pay the bill. But maybe the smarter citizens should have cared enough to get themselves informed about the REAL issue, and get out of their ivory towers, and kicked the criminal out of office.
So the money is not so that the 3 guys can afford to buy their groceries next week. It's about the fact that VERY FEW Durhamites have owned up to their lazy complicity in this fiasco, and so it appears that hitting them in the wallet is the only way to teach them a lesson that they should have known by rules of decency and the laws of the land.
Please stop your whining and understand that if just a FEW of you had organized yourselves into sane, reasoned voices to advocate for the due process of law, this would likely NOT be happening to you... at least not at this level. But you wimped out.
Now pay up, and shut up, and don't let it happen again!
FED UP/dsl
ONE MORE THING about the H-S Editorial:
ReplyDeleteYou keep talking about a trial. Whose trial are you talking about?
I sounds as if you are STILL suggesting that the guys are the ones who should be on trial. Am I misunderstanding here? And what, precisely would be the charges if that trial were held today?
Or, are you suggesting, in a brief moment of enlightment, that there should be a trial with the co-conspirators of the DPD and the Durham elected-officials, along with Nifong, etc. etc. etc.? Now that, I could go for. And we have LOTS of charges to pick from, with GOOD REASON and SOLID EVIDENCE.
Please, please, don't tell me that you are STILL saying that there should have been a trial for the 3 guys to PROVE their innocence?????
Can somebody please direct the writer of this HS editorial to THIS blog so he can observe how his insane editorial is setting with the folks out here who can read and write?
Hi KC,
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to have seen you at the Brooklyn Book Festival today.
You know, it used to be that UNC-CH had a penchant for hiring and encouraging a goof-ball faculty. Carolina is a government school and the citizens of NC came to understand this sort of function. They have suffered the fools gladly.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Duke is a private school and, it seems, until lately, its mission was insulated and far removed from the nuttiness that is so pervasive at Carolina.
With 3 billion in its endowment fund, I suppose Brodhead and the BOT can afford to play in the same league as UNC-CH. Is it necessary?
This body exhibit has been around for many months at Southpoint mall. It has been advertised quite often in the multiple mediums available for advertising. I find it strange that some Duke anthroup apologists would wait till the exhibit is esentially over to protest it. How brave and newsworthy, indeed. I believe the exhibit is schedule to end September 25. Now.... these fine folk either never shop at the most popular mall in Durham where the exhibit has been for many months or they are fakes about what they protest.
ReplyDelete5:5 -- Mrs Redpath has, by her own admission, not seen the exhibition.
ReplyDelete"It used to be that UNC-CH had a penchant for hiring and encouraging a goof-ball faculty."
ReplyDeleteOf course, there is a collage of nuts in every department, but none of them has ever tried to help send innocent students to prison for 30 years.
That requires a special brand of nuttiness.
I hope the Durham officials tells Barry and Company to stick it in their ears. There will be no hope of getting reelected if Durham officials agree to the payoff. As someone wrote on Jim in Caroline, the city should tell Barry - "Sure, we will make the changes you want and pay Five Million". See how quick Barry back tracks on that deal. I would love to see a trial. This really is the gift that keeps on giving.
ReplyDeleteKirk the global savior
ReplyDelete6:14, you can look at it another way. With 3 billion in the endowment fund, what do they care about what the alumni think? Theyve hired so many lunatics, theyve now taken over the asylum. And who can stop them? Nobody, IMO.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutly, this whole event was about election and votes - Nifongs. "Freedom of speech" is one of the things that makes this country great. Also "Presumption of Innocence" until proven quilty. These rights apply to everyone or should,
ReplyDeleteBaker's intellect IS wide-ranging - it ranges from laughably bad to exasperatingly horrid to embarassingly foolish to frighteningly dangerous. But not in a good way.
ReplyDeleteDMcG
Richmond VA
Someone may have corrected on another thread my statement that Houston Baker is on leave, but since I am the one who made the mistake, I'll correct it here. Houston Baker WAS on leave for 2006-07. He is listed as a current faculty member in the English Department at Vanderbilt, and, unfortunately, there is no indication he is anywhere except on campus. But as stated above by another commenter, no CV has been posted for him.
ReplyDeleteThe article in the WSJ about Mr. Gee SHOULD have garnered a lot of attention. And I hope the not quite so PC atmosphere necessitates Prof. Baker's departure in short order.
According to the Vanderbilt website, Charlotte Baker has a forthcoming book about how a family deals with bipolar disorder. No question the Bakers have faced some significant challenges in their lives...he, though, seems scarily bent on creating havoc in the lives of others. Students, beware!
Observer
Houston Baker's hypocrisy deserves all of the derision that it gets. No surprise that someone at Vanderbilt caught up with him. His history is easily transferable as it should be in the age of the internet. Thank God, and, has the Group of 88 taken notice that the internet has captured their bad behavior forever. The internet isn't their friend. With a couple of clicks on Google, slobs of their calibre can be uncovered and tracked for life.
ReplyDeleteIt's really hard to be a liar or hide yourself in this day and age.
I'm not sure I'd call Houston Baker an intellectual - he's more like a Mad Magazine parody of an intellectual. However, he is "wide-ranging" - at least in the sense that he is so far out of touch with reality that he can't even see it from where he is.
ReplyDeleteTo have gone from the spellbinding eloquence of Dr. King to the degenerate lunacy of Dr. Baker is a genuine tragedy. How am I to convince my children that the cause of civil rights is worth pursuing if its foremost exponents are racist buffoons like Baker?
Vanderbilt's gain is Duke's gain as well.
ReplyDeleteGood Luck with Mr. Baker. Wouldn't you like to take a course he was teaching.
I don't get it. What the heck could anyone find objectionable about Bodies...The Exhibition? Is this some weird form of nouveau prudery? What's next, burning witches?
ReplyDelete6:40. Oh promise me. Can you promise me that when the Durham officials agree to the $30 million they WON't get re-elected???
ReplyDeleteSounds like a win-win to me. Refuse the settlement, and get the trial and the truth comes out. Oh JOY!
Accept the settlement, and you're out of a job??? Oh, Joy again!
Either way.
Checkmate.
dsl
So, if Baker goes to Vanderbilt the average IQ of both Vandy and Duke goes up? Just wonderin'...
ReplyDeleteAnd even if the city pays 30 million dollars in a settlement, every single member of the current administration could be reelected. Nifong could likely win, were he able to run. The populace here just loves injustice and race hatred - they cannot get enough of it or move beyond it.
Actually I think the only way to slow down PC mania at Duke it to slow it down on a national level. As long as other top universities want people like Houston Baker, then Duke will want people like him to “stay competitive.”
ReplyDeleteHopefully KC’s book will help gain awareness of the PC problem on a wider scale and the demand for ideologues will fall.
"I don't get it. What the heck could anyone find objectionable about Bodies...The Exhibition? Is this some weird form of nouveau prudery? What's next, burning witches?"
ReplyDelete"9/16/07 7:41 PM"
Not supporting the Group of 88, but I believe the Bodies Exhibit is repulsive. The root of the issue is that the bodies are from China and there is no 'Informed Consent" as provided by the Geneva Convention. Additionally, there is no history on who these bodies are an no one can find any relatives. For these two reasons the Florida Anatomical Board fought this exhibition in Florida as it was widely believed that the company that owns these bodies is a Chinese government entity using prisoner's bodies for huge profit. You will never get a straight answer as to where these poor people (bodies) came from. I guess I have a strong distrust of the Chinese Government and I find the display of the bodies a form of gory money making porn. I can only imagine how these people became grusome display cadavers.
Maybe the good citizens of Durm could strike up a deal with the hoaxed 3. Rather than a monetary settlement, the city could parade out its city manager, mayor, council members, the morons from the DeePeeDee who worked to railroad these three innocent young men (which would include all of the leadership and many street cops), and the ADA's who complicitously conspired with Mikey. Once this group is assembled, each and every one could announce their part in the conspiracy and publicly apologize to Reade, Collin, Dave, Mike, and the remaining LAX players AND their families. Then if the guys decide to accept the apologies (because they seem to be sincere) AND the city of Durm agrees to clean up it's act (AND DOES), then maybe the money can be dispensed with. Dook hasn't learned it's lesson yet. Oh they paid some money, but they still may be paying an even bigger sum in the invasion of privacy arena. The guys don't have to file that lawsuit, the Feds can handle that one.
ReplyDeleteDook has done nothing to exorcise it's demons (pun intended) so maybe the Feds can help by exorcising some of the endowment money that seems to be overburdening them.
Ah, Wonderland.....
I don't know what all of you nutjobs are going to do to get your fix when this blog shuts down. I'm sort of looking forward to the deafening silence though. Should be fun.
ReplyDeleteHey, as long as DIW is still around on the WWW, we can always go back to the beginning and start again. Studying the insanity of Savant's Degener88s will help us to integr8 into our lives a greater understanding of the incompetence celebr8ed at too many of our institutions of "higher education" and to celebr8 what a gr8 job KC has done with this blog. I anxiously aw8 my copy of UPI.
Thanks Savant for the heads up, KC for your usual ultim8 job, and to my soulm8s at DIW.
From a comment by "Vince Walker" on the Vanderbilt article on Houston Baker (see the link in KC's post): Houston Baker "was the chief antagonist of the University of Penn `Water Buffalo' debacle of a few years back. There have also been allegations with sexual harassment leading to several changes of locale."
ReplyDeleteTwo questions. First, I did not know he had anything to do with the "Water Buffalo" incident. What did he do? Second, this is the second time I have seen something about Houston Baker being suspected of sexual harassment. Is this just rumor? If there is something to it, somebody ought to be able to track it down. At least, someone should be able to identify locations, dates, names, etc.
re: 7:12
ReplyDeleteAnnual sales of antipsychotics is from $8 billion to $12 billion in the US. So there are a lot of families out there dealing with Bipolar, Schizophrenia and Depression whether with children, parents or spouses. I would guess that these kinds of mental health problems run in the low single-digits of the population.
It is something that is very hard on families and one can wonder why they've been so cursed. But I thought that this was a past problem for the Bakers.
AF 9:05;
ReplyDeleteI LOVE it.
"I don't know what all of you nutjobs are going to do to get your fix when this blog shuts down."
ReplyDeleteWe will wait patiently for KC to send (hopefully)occasional contributions to DIW or whatever it evolves to. We have been captured by his absolute research, incisive analysis and unerring publication of the events of this situation and related issues.
I hope that when he finishes the Fulbright he will come back and run for something, as someone has suggested.
I remember a post made probably a few weeks ago which is a pretty apt description of KC in which he is likened to the fellow in Tennessee Ernie Ford's Sixteen Tons:
"If you see me coming better step aside
A lot of men didn't a lot of men died
One fist of iron the other of steel
If the right one don't get you then the left one will"
Thanks to whomever thought of that!
Sleep well, all!
It's sad that RRH feels free each and every time to keep repeating things he knows to be false about Darryl Hunt. It's clear that for some reason, he wants Darryl Hunt to be considered guilty, and he does not care how the truth needs to be twisted in order to create that impression. I would recommend that anyone tempted to believe RRH's version of the Darryl Hunt case look at the Sykes Report which, contrary to RRH's bald-faced assertion that "Darryl Hunt probably did the murder", concluded that "There is no evidence that Mr. Hunt was involved in the Sykes rape or murder."
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty shameful that we are all here celebrating the exoneration of three innocent young men and excoriating those who still insist in ignorance of the evidence that "something happened" -- and yet we have one among us determined to spread misinformation that "something happened" between Darryl Hunt and Deborah Sykes, trying to retroactively rob Mr. Hunt of his exoneration.
Duke in 2006 was crawling with old Water Buffalo veterans. Larry Moneta was the guy to whom the U. Penn 'judicial' system reported, and under him a campus police report that exculpated the defendant was suppressed, labeled 'confidential', and not allowed to be presented at the hearing. The whole event, where a student was convicted by the campus administration of racial harassmant for calling some rowdy women 'water buffaloes' for raising hell while he was trying to write a paper, was an early example of political correctness running off the deep end.
ReplyDeleteBut outside of Mr. Moneta, I can't find Houston Baker in that chapter of 'The Shadow University', and he's not in the index either. I'll let him off from a link to the Water Buffalo travesty, but he's got plenty of other bugs and features going for him. But indeed, Mr. Moneta was crawling around Duke doing plenty of PC damage in 2006.
Quick note from an OSU alum on Gee - oddly enough, people have fond memories of him here. He has some friends - oddly enough, consevrative-leaning friends. Of course, when Gee came on board at OSU, it was to reorganize the University. Folded a couple of departments (including Film) and took the heat therefrom. So he is regarded as a cost-cutter. And he didn't particularly monkey with the big two sports programs at OSU. (And I believe he is on notice not to try to mess with Tressel now).
ReplyDeleteBaker is mentioned at the "Water Buffalo" site on goggle.
ReplyDeleteTo the 12:30,
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the Water Buffalo incident, one Sheldon Hackney was the President of the University of Pennsylvania. He was up for consideration as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities at the time, although he was also the genius who promulgated the first speech code at U Penn and later took plenty of flack for that unconstitutional move. His administration did all it could to shush the outrage over the egregious disciplinary overreaching that portrayed 'water buffalo' as a racial epithet. Of course that failed and the case went national in the media and made U Penn, and Sheldon Hackney himself, look like fools. Properly.
Neither did Larry Moneta cover himself with glory, although he proved all too good at talking out both sides of his mouth about speech codes.
But all my rooting around in 'The Shadow University' and in Google turns up nothing about Sheldon Baker's involvement, other than some unsupported assertions that he advised the water buffaloes themselves at U Penn.
He once complained he suffered a home invasion in Philadelphia, but apparently it was committed by neither water buffaloes nor behemas.
Until someone points out the exact reference, I'm assuming someone has his Sheldons mixed up.
10:45, were you one of Hunt's attorneys? You sound like you have a personal stake in this case.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "Sykes Report", Nifong made out as good a case for the Lax 3's guilt as the Sykes Report authors' did for Hunt's innocence. But anyway, I hear Hollywood is going to make a movie about the Hunt case, and so that will be that: Everyone will be forced to believe or pretend to believe the celluloid version.
I think the Winston-Salem newspaper did a much better job of investigating and summing up the Sykes case than did the Sykes Report authors -- I mean, really: "NOOOOOOO evidence"?? Hmmm.
The Hunt Case was like the Lax 3 case in reverse: All the social and political forces that could be brought to bear in that case were brought not against the defendant, but for him. Now, no one is talking. Go here and turn to page 3 to see the long list of all those who -- though they knew the case best -- won't say a word now. Some exerpts:
At an Impasse
Even after 19 years, the fear and suspicion created by the Hunt case keep many from talking openly about what they know....
Many of the police officers involved also declined to discuss their role, saying that they don't want to relive the past.
Sammy Mitchell, Hunt's codefendant, declined a written request for an interview. His attorneys, too, declined to comment. Mitchell's mother is dead, and a sister, reached in Chicago, declined to be interviewed....
Many of the state's other key witnesses are either dead or unwilling to tell their stories....
Kevey Coleman, the only witness to place Hunt and Mitchell at the scene together, would agree only to a brief telephone interview. He said he felt harassed over the years by people who supported Hunt, but he wouldn't explain what he meant....
But I don't think we'll see any of this in the Hollywood "truth", will we?
I have to give Hunt's persistent and persistently anonymous defender some credit: While he slanders me by claiming I've made "false statements" about Hunt, at least he no longer claims that "DNA exonerates Hunt of the murder."
RRH
Anonymous @6:20 PM said...
ReplyDeleteThis body exhibit has been around for many months at Southpoint mall. It has been advertised quite often in the multiple mediums available for advertising. I find it strange that some Duke anthroup apologists would wait till the exhibit is esentially over to protest it. How brave and newsworthy, indeed. I believe the exhibit is schedule to end September 25. Now.... these fine folk either never shop at the most popular mall in Durham where the exhibit has been for many months or they are fakes about what they protest.
Aha...!!! Here's how it works.
- Wait until the show only has a week or so to run.
- Make a scene...get arrested.
Waiting till late ensures that the real enthusiasts, who may have knowledge and also resent your protest, have already been.
Getting arrested is worth many brownie points with ones peer group AND gets you wider attention.
In a few years time when most folk have moved onto other things one can then start to "take credit" for "closing" the show.
Try it. It works a charm in enhancing one's profile in some circles.
Steven Horwitz said...
ReplyDelete"Advocating for silly causes (right or left) outside of the classroom is not a reason for questioning someone's qualifications to be a college professor."
True for any individual case, but not in the aggregate. When (in comparison to the general population) an unusual proportion of your faculty advocates for silly left-wing causes, customers and other stakeholders have cause to ask WTF?
And by the way, lets cut the phony moral equivalency. Anyone who's been on a campus in the last thirty years knows knows it isn't "right or left", it's always left.
The Hearal-Sun, dodging the point:
ReplyDelete"It appears DPD officials turned the case over to then District Attorney Mike Nifong, who, as we know, pursued it like Ahab chased the white whale."
They did not have the authority to "turn it over." Himan and Gottlieb drew paychecks from and report to the DPD, and that newver changed. Their DPD leadership may have told them "do what Nifong says," but they did what Nifong said because their superionrs had the authority to order them to do so, not because Nifong did.
It's the city's responsibility to have their police behave lawfully.
Anonymous 9/16/07 11:51 PM said...
ReplyDelete"Quick note from an OSU alum on Gee - oddly enough, people have fond memories of him here. He has some friends - oddly enough, consevrative-leaning friends. Of course, when Gee came on board at OSU, it was to reorganize the University. Folded a couple of departments (including Film) and took the heat therefrom. So he is regarded as a cost-cutter. And he didn't particularly monkey with the big two sports programs at OSU. (And I believe he is on notice not to try to mess with Tressel now)."
One possible explanation is that Gee is a good employee who will carry out whatever policy his employers ask him to, and that the problem at Vanderbilt, as at Duke, is not in the administration promoting PC policy so much as it is in the BOT that decided to make PC an institutional policy.
Re: anon 9/16/07 3:44 PM
ReplyDeleteNYT Link. Revisiting the Canon Wars
"And by the way, lets cut the phony moral equivalency. Anyone who's been on a campus in the last thirty years knows knows it isn't "right or left", it's always left."
ReplyDeleteVery true.
Devastatingly true.
Never will I forget a few years ago when I went to hear a controversial speaker--not because I followed everything this person professed--just to acquaint myself with a current issue.....and.....
.....he was booed and the small group of black students tried to intimidate other students by sitting way too close to them, staring them down, and then staging a walk-out protest.
The poor students who were just there to listen had to contend with this kind of behavior and nothing was done about it.
That's when I knew things were going down the tubes regarding decency and fairness on university campuses.
I was just appalled how a small group really intimidated the larger, more decorous, group.
Ultra-leftists of every hue cannot abide free speech and differing opinions.
To Insufficiently Sensitive
ReplyDeleteIt's Houston Baker, not Sheldon Baker. And there are several statements (unsupported? -- don't know) that he was faculty advisor to the water buffaloes at Penn.
to the 12:17,
ReplyDeleteI stand guilty as charged, on the first name of 'Professor' Baker (Houston, not Sheldon), and apologize for the flagrant error. A real doozy, too.
However, multiple readings of 'The Shadow University' only turn up one reference to an advisor to said water buffaloes - the administration seized their complaints and ran with them, particularly one Robin Read, the 'Judicial' Inquiry Officer, whose methods were not unrelated to Mike Nifong's.
Here on page 25 we see that a hearing was postponed because the water buffaloes had lost their advisor, one Zoila Airall - who didn't want to appear in the case after the bright light of publicity began to hit U Penn.
And on page 32 the water buffaloes are flanked by (unnamed) 'trustees and eminent professors'. And that's it for references to their supporters, advisors, cheerleaders and so forth.
I may be insufficiently sensitive, but I remain to be convinced that Houston (not Sheldon) Baker had any relation to the water buffaloes.
And my apologies to those who've suffered through all this trivia due to my errors.
OK. I read Revisiting the Canon.
ReplyDeleteThe prof is complaining that the people think the Humanities have no relevance. If he is a liberal he should be cheering that moral relativism has won. If no judgments can be made no need to teach judgment, eh? I guess the downside of that bothers the prof.
Bloom was wrong about Rock 'n Roll though.
Hunt's original trial attorney, Mark Rabil, worked on the case for nearly 20 years. After the second conviction, in which Rabil was part of a larger defense team, Rabil and another attorney, Ben Dowling-Sendor, filed for DNA testing in the case. In October 1994, DNA results came back. Hunt's DNA did not match the semen found on the victim's body at the crime scene. Despite the results, however, Hunt's appeals were rejected. Judges found that the new evidence did not prove innocence. Repeated appeals met the same fate.
ReplyDeleteExoneration
Finally, in 2004, 19 years after Hunt was convicted and 10 years after he was first excluded by DNA, the DNA profile from the crime scene was run in the state database, at the request of Hunt's attorneys. The results matched a man incarcerated for another murder. Hunt was exonerated and freed in 2005.
Willard E. Brown, the man whose DNA matched the profile at the crime scene, has since pleaded guilty to the murder of Deborah Sykes.
Innocence Project
rrh,
ReplyDeleteI find it odd that Brown didn't claim "sure I raped her, but Hunt did the murder". Or some such.
3:00PM The Vick defense. I killed the dogs but did not bet on them.
ReplyDeleteThe Torch--libertarian and conservative ideas, eh? Just the folks I'd expect to be doing KC's dirty work for him.
ReplyDeleteVendetta? Yes, that would be pretty correct. Against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you.
TO 3:58PM--
ReplyDeleteHow droll.