Sunday, September 16, 2007

Sunday Roundup

An interesting recent exchange of letters in the (Myrtle Beach) Sun News.

First, a Patricia Robinson offered a borderline-incoherent missive:

Let’s get real about this rape and the contempt [charges]. I wasn’t there so I don’t know what or who about the rape or lie, but what I do know is that whatever happened in that house, or to that DA, was for a good reason. One, the lacrosse players were acting like overbearing children, to call passers-by names[?!!]. I’ve walked past places like that and the childishness of grown men is ridiculous. I hope lessons were learned from this case that this didn’t have to be. We place football, basketball, soccer players above regular people or just turn heads to the problem. We see it every day, the way athletes are handled with kid gloves to the point they start to think nothing will happen.

Robinson’s letter triggered a response in yesterday’s paper:

To even imply that what happened to Duke lacrosse players Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty was their fault is absolutely ludicrous. These three young men were falsely accused; in fact, they were declared “innocent,” a step beyond “not guilty,” by N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper in a nationally televised press conference in April. They were the targets of a rogue prosecutor who engaged in a pattern of official misconduct that included multiple material misrepresentations to multiple courts on multiple occasions, and as a result the “Duke three” and their families lost a year of their lives. They suffered physically, emotionally and financially because of one man’s personal agenda. For the rest of their lives, these young men will be known as those indicted in the Duke rape case.

Their fault? Anyone who believes that obviously has not followed the facts for the past 18 months.

The author of the rebuttal letter, Rebecca Bannon, is rumored to have a familial relationship with the DNA Breaker. Judging from her letter, I suspect that Dr. Brian Meehan wouldn't like her very much, either.


The new Durham Police chief, José Lopez, sat down for an interview with N&O columnist Ruth Sheehan. The results were—to put it mildly—disappointing. Sheehan writes,

[During a local appearance,] he was asked a lot of questions about the lacrosse case. He thinks these questions “re-victimize” the people of Durham.

He said he hasn’t read the key reports on the city’s handling of the Duke lacrosse case. They are on his to-do list, and he promises to fix whatever needs fixing. He won’t elaborate further. He said he will not take action or make changes just to appease the people “who are looking for blood” in the case.

It’s hard to fathom such an approach.

Allegations have been made—including, now, possible criminal allegations—of massive procedural misconduct by members of the Durham Police Department. And the chief can’t find the time even to read the reports on the matter?

The DPD was involved in obtaining indictments against three demonstrably innocent people. And the chief believes asking questions about how this occurred “re-victimizes” the people of Durham?

Lopez’s interview is Exhibit #1 justifying the civil suit against Durham. Absent legal pressure, it’s perfectly clear the DPD will do nothing to change its ways.


Mayor Bell, meanwhile, is increasingly finding himself squeezed between constituent and insurance pressure on the one hand and doing the right thing on the other. Bell, the person most responsible for the creation of the Whichard Committee to investigate the DPD, is doing everything he can to keep the inquiry alive. “We really need to know what occurred,” the mayor told N&O editors and reporters. “I don’t think the community’s going to be satisfied until we do.”

This approach differs markedly from that of City Manager Patrick Baker, author of the whitewash report suggesting the DPD handled the case properly. Baker is now saying that it was all Mike Nifong’s fault for forcing Mark Gottlieb and Ben Himan to appear before the grand jury: “I don’t know that there was any constitutional authority for us to say, ‘You know, Mr. District Attorney, we’re not going to answer your subpoena to testify in front of the grand jury. We think it’s time to shut [the case] down.’”

[This viewpoint radically differs from that offered by Baker on May 10, 2006, when he gave an interview to the N&O. Then, the city manager described a Police Department actively engaged with the investigation, asserting, “I’ve had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate [Crystal Mangum] changed her story. If that were true, I’m sure someone would have mentioned it to me.”]

The Baker argument might make sense if Gottlieb and Himan had told the grand jury that Nifong was asking them to indict on no evidence. Somehow, I doubt that occurred. It also would make sense if higher-ups in the DPD—having been informed of the flawed lineup—had stepped in and ordered Gottlieb to follow procedure. Instead, they have continued to justify the procedural misconduct, whether in the Baker/Chalmers report or in the Ripberger deposition before the Bar.

At the same time, Bell—campaigning for re-election—is playing to the basest elements in the crowd in discussing the civil suit negotiations. Asked about his interactions with voters over the issue, the mayor responded, “They think it's ridiculous . . . People have heard there was a settlement with Duke. [The players] didn't spend any time in jail, didn't go to trial and now they're giving demands that could affect people's pocketbooks as taxpayers.”

It appears as if Bell believes that the federal government should repeal the section of the civil rights statute that allows those whose constitutional rights are violated by a government entity to sue that government entity, with a result that—if successful—would “affect people's pocketbooks as taxpayers.”

Perhaps repealing this civil rights protection can be a new cause for Durham’s congressman (and former Duke professor) David Price, whose silence throughout this case has been conspicuous. Or, perhaps, the state NAACP can come out in favor of weakening civil rights law to ensure that such suits can’t “affect people’s pocketbooks as taxpayers.” After all, the organization contradicted its traditional positions on so many other issues during the lacrosse case.

In the meantime, Bell might want to refer his constituents to this recent post from JinC, who spoke to several local attorneys and explains why the city is so vulnerable to a civil suit. (I will have more on this issue tomorrow.)


At Liestoppers, the always witty Joan Foster offers a poetic tribute to Mike Nifong and his law enforcement enablers, now that rumors of a federal inquiry have begun to circulate.


A name from early in the lacrosse case was back in the news last week. Attorney Wes Convington—the “fixer” recommended by Duke to the lacrosse captains, whose approach to the case presumed some good faith by the DPD, which obviously wasn’t there in this instance—was disciplined by the State Bar for a conflict of interest violation.

Covington previously had seen his law license suspended by the Bar for ethical violations.

One of the great unknowns of this case is whether the disaster could have been avoided had the players retained top-flight attorneys from the start.


Both the N&O and the Charlotte Observer express amazement (appropriately) that Governor Easley and his staff appear to have forgotten the state law prohibiting appointments of non-electors to North Carolina government offices.

Easley has engaged in an after-the-fact justification of the appointment of David Saacks, but his argument isn’t terribly convincing.


A deeply disturbing development last week involved Duke Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. Cal.-Irvine has decided to start a new law school, and invited Chemerinsky to serve as its inaugural dean. The choice couldn’t have been a better one: Chemerinsky is not only a leading legal scholar, but he’s someone—in his previous stint in California—who demonstrated an ability to work effectively with politicians, journalists, and the public.

Under pressure from Orange County conservatives, however, the chancellor rescinded the offer—prompting a firestorm of criticism from groups across the ideological spectrum about the university’s commitment to academic freedom and its willingness to uphold high standards.

Yesterday’s L.A. Times reported that the chancellor might now be reconsidering his decision; if the Cal regents were smart, they would bring aboard Chemerinsky and find other employment for the chancellor.


Finally, for those who missed it, Kristin Butler’s latest outstanding column, from the Chronicle. As Butler appropriately noted, the Nifong trial featured more than its share of “only in Durham” moments. And, as she also appropriately noted, the Morey and Stephens testimony on Nifong’s behalf formed part of a broader pattern:

Over the past 18 months we’ve seen a succession of judges, assistant district attorneys, police officers, city council members and other high-ranking officials (like City Manager Patrick Baker and Chief of Police Steve Chalmers) lining up to support or cover for Nifong. Even newly appointed interim DA David Saacks-who is widely described as moderate and relatively untainted by the scandal-appeared on Nifong’s behalf at the contempt trial.

Read the entire column here.


Anonymous said...

Where was Erwin Chemerisnky during the course of this hoax? For someone who champions civil liberties he didn't seem to have as much of an impact as Coleman.

Anonymous said...

I did read Kristin Butler’s "latest outstanding column, from the Chronicle." As usual, she was spot on with her commentary. I hope she can use you and Stuart Taylor as references as she nears graduation and begins a job search or applying to grad school.

Anonymous said...

"One, the lacrosse players were acting like overbearing children, to call passers-by names[?!!]"

One suspects that Ms. Robinson did hear the 911 call made on the night of the lacrosse party claiming that there had been racial slurs uttered at two women who were simultaneously walking and driving by, but did not hear what police already knew at the time the networks were broadcasting the 911 tape: it was a lie by Kim Roberts, who was definitely not just a "passer-by" but the initiator of racial slurs that night.

Anonymous said...

The author of the rebuttal letter, Rebecca Bannon, is rumored to have a familial relationship with the DNA Breaker. Judging from her letter, I suspect that Dr. Brian Meehan wouldn't like her very much, either.

Sorry to be dense, but I don't get the reference. Who's the DNA Breaker? Can somebody enlighten me?

AMac said...

In August 2006, Prof. Johnson interviewed Prof. Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky's comments were timid and tepid, but he publically supported the application of Due Process and Presumption of Innocence to the case. That put him ahead of many of his peers.

Gary Packwood said...

Ms. Patricia Robinson writes...

'We place football, basketball, soccer players above regular people or just turn heads to the problem. We see it every day, the way athletes are handled with kid gloves to the point they start to think nothing will happen.'
This is what is called a FAT CAT letter and I pay very close attention to such letters.

The wives of United Auto Workers at one time referred to 'management' as Fat Cats as opposed to 'regular people'.

Trust me, you don't want thousands of people yelling 'Fat Cat' when you are leaving church or when you are preparing to speak.

Coaches would be well advised to help their student athletes understand that they are also regular people.

If I had seen that letter I would have responded also ...and head off a FAT CAT/Regular People discussion across town.

And yes 12:18 that is why Kim was trained to make the 911 call.

Debrah said...

No need to mince words.

It pains me greatly to disagree with my Midnight Rider...whose signature brilliance projects well beyond the Wonderland gates....however.....

...I cannot give a thumbs up to Erwin Chemerinsky.

Sadly, his selective record speaks for itself.

But what would life be if everyone agreed with the tempestuous Diva on everything?

KC is the rare scholar--afflatus maximus--no mere banausic academic, he.....who can command the attention of many because of his intellectual purity.

A brand with the strength to command the attention of all Divas of the world.

Anonymous said...

Re: Chemerinsky and "pressure from Orange County conservatives",

1. Not so fast, KC. You might want to wait for some more facts to come out, rather than rushing to blame "conservatives" for riding him out on an ideological rail. For example, he has apparently publicly stated at least one major falsehood about law in support of his anti-death penalty crusade. Nobody's perfect, but if he lied to advance his pet cause, he is clearly not law school dean material. See second half of:,0,1791213.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center


The fact that the LA Times eveb admits that Chemerinsky might have a problem with truth is signficant, given the all the attention they gave to "conservatives" and the Bush-bashing in the article.

2. It is also not apparent to me why taking ideology into account when hiring the leader of a law school is off the scale. Being a brilliant technician of the law is not sufficient. Certainly ideology is a factor in hiring professors -- as you have so ably documented at Duke, particularly in certain departments, and it's not like there's a shortage of left wing lawyers and law schools in the world. His efforts to tie the government in legal knots about our enemies held at Gitmo is extremist enough to warrant passing him over. If Chancellor Drake needs to go (and I think he does), his problem is in not figuring this out in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I live near the "Jena Six," the local lawyers, who took the case for free, seem to think the DA there was a lot like Nifong. Again, the school did not fairly support students, although this was black on white crime, the out cry from the Jackson, Sharpton, etc, seems to be justified.


Stuart McGeady said...

To the 12:20 AM...

The DNA Breaker is Brad Bannon, who was a defense attorney for the then defendant lax players. He spent several weeks studying 1800 (+/-) pages of lab data previously withheld by Mike Nifong and the obfuscating Dr. Brian Meehan. Bannon's examination of Meehan at the hearing on December 15, 2007 resulted in proof that Nifong conspired to hide exculpatory DNA evidence in support of the defendants' innocence.

Stuart McGeady said...

Sorry, that would be December 15, 2006.

Debrah said...

Sadly, I would have to vote to rescind the offer to Chemerinsky.....knowing that he sat back for a year and a half at Duke's law school while three young men were being railroaded by his fellow academics at the same institution.

His willingness to speak out--(from a distance for a scurrilous leftist cause)--about Gitmo; however, shows that he still has a pulse.

A pulse that is not keeping pace with true justice
when it counts most.

But you know what? In the scheme of things, I couldn't care less about anything Chemerinsky does or doesn't do.

Dispassionate is the word for an otherwise very passionate Diva.

Debrah said...

I hate to say this, but I must.

To put things into context about the (Myrtle Beach) letter writer:

Myrtle Beach is filled with redneck types. From reading that strange letter, it would seem that some down there rival Durham for the title of most ill-informed residents.

Very strange people.

Duke1965 said...


Chancellor Drake tells a far different story than Prof. Chemerinsky regarding the recission of the offer. According to Drake, he rescinded the offer because he had a clear understanding with Chemerinsky that Chemerinsky would avoid commenting on non-legal political matters, and instead would confine his comments to legal matters related to his position as dean of the UCI law school. Drake said that he rescinded the offer because the very day the contract was signed, Chemerinsky wrote a letter to the LA times criticizing the war in Iraq, etc. In Drake's view that was in clear violation of his "agreement" with Chemerinsky. Drake claims that he was not pressured by the OC right wingnuts, or anyone else.

What do you think?

Anonymous said...

Inre: "By his own admission, Chemerinsky has not followed the lacrosse case closely"

Why not?

This alone is reason to question his bona fides.

For those to suggest otherwise...well they may want to consider the timing.

Where was he when it mattered?

I really respect those who defend him and hope he will step forward and defend his inaction.

Anonymous said...

E-Che has no right to a prestigious post at a taxpayer-funded university. Of course, he thinks he does. For so long radical-leftists have treated as their personal piggybanks the pockets of Joe and Jane Taxpayer that it always comes as a shock when they learn that, yes, we still live in a democracy, despite their best efforts. In a democracy, the taxpayers are entitled to demand that government-paid positions of influence -- like law school dean of a public university -- not be filled by a radical.

On the one hand, I'm sorry that E-Che feels the pain of this rejection, but on the other hand, given that he's paid more attention to the rights of terrorists than to the students of his own university, I don't feel so sorry for E-Che after all.

Anonymous said...

Considering the angst created by dismissing just this one uber leftist professor --- imagine the pandemonium if just 10% of similar anti American leftist professors or the racists enthroned in AA departments were removed from positions...

Sorely need, to salvage our universities.....but sadly unlikely.

Anonymous said...


Don't demean your blog with a slam at "conservatives" in general. It is beneath you.

Anonymous said...

The new Durham Police Chief Lopez refuses to even read the reports of the LAX horror, let alone make changes.

So it's official. The 'd' in Durham stands for digit - as in the middle one they keep flipping at justice over and over - and over and over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Badges! Yes we need those stinking badges in Durham. The new chief just arrived and already you give him the bad mouth. Chief Lopez seems like one macho guy, and he is going to deal with the bad boys in his outfit - his way - on his schedule - all of them. The fall-out will be evident, but he probably will not discuss his 'internal cleansing' plans with the press (yea, the DPD is gonna get an enema.) Sure he smiled at the reporter and said he hasn't read the reports, that is a polite way of giving her the brush off. Wasn't the interview conducted at his big swearing in ceremony? Bad timing for an in depth interview.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chief has privately already kicked his top brass' azzz, including the nearly invisible Chalmers. Lopez had to just to get their attention. I find his reference to "BLOOD" refreshing, like a line in the sand. Do not dare to cross it. He understands blood, he knows about bad blood, he understands how to deal with it - its in his gene memory. Once he has taken control of his men he will be daring Baker to cross the line. I say give him time.

Anonymous said...

Re: Lopez
Yes, give him time. But right now, it doesn't look like there will be much of a change. To admit he hasn't even read the reports tell us much. If he had replied that he is studying the reports right now, I'b feel a lot more comfortable.

Anonymous said...

re Rosen NYT review of UPI:

Notice how Rosen ended the review?

It's all code. I suspect he's scared of confronting the reason 88s exist on all elite campuses:


What a joke! Can't talk about black racism and mediocrity (the 2 poles of the bipolar 88) in polite company.

james conrad said...

hmmmm, it appears KC has a blind spot where erwin is concerned, thats OK, hes not alone, hugh hewitt is a big fan of his as well.for some real chemerinsky background

Anonymous said...


Great Review in The Economist:

Are you speaking/book signing in NYC ?

KV T'78

Anonymous said...

It seems that the powers that be in Durham do not "get it." Moreover, by continually changing their stories - a la Crystal -- they only make things worse. Why, just a year ago, the Durham police were strong, independent and acting on their own; today, they want all of us to believe that they were not telling the truth a year ago (When do they EVER tell the truth?) and Mikey made them do it.

My sense is that simply are dealing with dishonest people, and while dishonest people never learn a lesson, nonetheless one still needs to take them to the cleaners. If the people of Durham are "victims" of Nifong and the police, then why were they do supportive of them last year?

After all, we KNEW more than a year ago that the charges were hoaxes, so that is not an excuse. I suspect that the loudest voices in Durham (some of whom knew the Mangum family in all their dishonesty) knew along along it was a hoax, but the envy and anger that defines their lives became the driving force. Yeah, they reasoned, it was a lie, but so what?

There ARE victims in Durham, those being the decent people who stood up, but there were very few of them. Had there been more Beth Brewers, Jon Hams, and Jackie Browns, perhaps this fiasco could have been avoided. Instead, we saw everyone else trying to emulate Victoria Peterson.

mac said...

A couple of comments:

The letter writer - (Patricia Robinson) - is likely Black. Sentence structure and word choice would indicate that this is not a "redneck" writing this letter: this is a somewhat-educated writer, probably a person who works for a municipality answering phones. Not stupid, but not very well-informed. The post shows how much damage has been done to the accused, however: they'll wear the label forever, especially in the minds of the uninformed.

Here's hoping that Lopez isn't Fez # 2, a new incarnation at the helm of the Dee Pee Dee. There's still time for him to grow a pair.

I agree with posters about Chemerinsky. If he's gonna be a dean, he needs to let his politics sit on the sideline, just as you - (KC) - have mostly managed to do. And as many of us - (conservatives and liberals and libertarians alike)- have done. Besides, if he's gonna be a dean, he better be willing to stand up and be counted in more significant ways: being on the sidelines and disagreeing with the way the game is being played - (as in the Lacrosse Burning) - means he has splinters in his butt, but that he's never been on the field in this particular game. Yeah, he's on the right team, but there's no mud on his uniform!

Anonymous said...

what's the deal with cherminsky?

why should I care about this person?

christoph said...

It took me a minute to place the familiarity of Patricia Robinson's prose: Roseanne Roseanna-Danna! ...after someone explains the case to her, she'll brightly say, "Never mind!"

Debrah said...

Coverage from the N&O's Q on KC's appearance there last week.

Debrah said...

October 1st is when the Wonderland gates will be locked and the Midnight Rider dah-ling will be off to Israel.

I might go crazy just thinking about it.......right at this very moment!

Debrah said...

"Had there been more Beth Brewers, Jon Hams, and Jackie Browns, perhaps this fiasco could have been avoided. Instead, we saw everyone else trying to emulate Victoria Peterson."

Very true.

I think Jon Ham's daughter is now a journalist as well.

Debrah said...

The new Durham Police chief, José Lopez, sat down for an interview with N&O columnist Ruth Sheehan. The results were—to put it mildly—disappointing.

I read that and can say with fervor: It would help if the N&O had sent someone to do this column who knew how to ask the right questions.

It pains me that the banal-'til-it-hurts Sheehan is even mentioned in KC's book.

Debrah said...

OK, here we go.

It's a crisp September Sunday morning..... all you sleepy heads wake up.......and.......get happy!!!!!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The choice couldn’t have been a better one: Chemerisnky is not only a leading legal scholar, but he’s someone—in his previous stint in California—who demonstrated an ability to work effectively with politicians, journalists, and the public.-KC

I'm really shocked that you hold such a high opinion of Chemerinsky (please note the spelling error) considering he didn't speak out on the lacrosse case. Doesn't that make him a craven individual in your eyes?

Anonymous said...

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.

Debrah said...

Here is the article in American Journalism Review that was mentioned in today's N&O coverage of the Midnight Rider dah-ling:

Justice Delayed

I think I've already read this. Perhaps KC posted it before.

It's difficult to keep everything straight...there have been so many.

kcjohnson9 said...

A few quick replies on Chemerinsky:

1) The LA Times article to which I linked made clear that Orange County conservatives (led by an LA supervisor who previously had run for the Senate) complained about Chemerinsky.

2) UCI--or any other institution--has the right to list any qualifications it wants for a dean, including someone who doesn't comment much on non-academic issues. But it knew what it was getting in Chemerinsky. To extend the offer and then rescind it (under pressure) is dubious behavior.

3) The Chancellor's explanations in this case have been highly inconsistent. When the story first broke, he denied any outside pressure (which he now has conceded) but instead claimed that he withdrew the offer because of expected opposition from the Board of Regents. Yet, as the LA Times story makes clear, there was no opposition from the Board.

4) Yes, I do think Chemerinsky should have spoken out against Nifong.

Unknown said...

Debrah - I need to wash my eyes out with lye now - Rufus in stockings does not compare with you in boots. You will just have to trust me on this.

And yes, it is crisp this morning, freezing even, we got a bit of rain, finally, and the heat wave has been broken. I for one miss the heat - we only had 75 days of 90 degree weather - hardly seems like summer even got started. It is almost State Fair time, so there is hope for the future. FRIED TWINKIES!!! Sorry...

But, back on topic here...

I am willing to give Lopez a bit of time to actually accomplish something, but so far, he does not seem to be the type of person who will make the kind of changes that the DPD needs to be anything other than a laughing stock. Time will tell, but the job of chief is just a revolving door in this town, and as long as Bill "Do you like my Jaguar" Bell is mayor things will coast along, slowly, trending ever downward.

Can Duke pawn Chemerinsky off on someone else?

Debrah said...

"I'm sort of looking forward to the deafening silence though."


You shouldn't rush things for yourself.

You'll have enough of that when you bite the dust.


Anonymous said...

Chemerinsky did not disapprove of Nifong's actions, therefore he had no reason to speak out.

Perhaps I should have posted in the blog-approved Five O'clock Charlie form in order to avoid deletion: Is Chemerinsky a communist?


Anonymous said...

I don't know about the rest of the nutjobs but I plan to monitor the productivity and whereabouts of the 88-ers over the next year and write lots of emails to college presidents and provosts.

If the 88-ers think the heat will be off when KC heads to Israel - they might just be wrong. LOL

Anonymous said...

Chemerinsky was quoted in the LA Times as saying (in response to criticism regarding his 8/16 op ed trashing Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Dept.'s death penalty review procedures): "Shouldn't we as academics be able to stand up for people on death row?"

C'mon Erwin!It's not like the indicted Duke players were defending a jay-walking citation! Oh, the irony.

Based on what I have read about the UC-I debacle, the central facts are still in dispute and the "he said/he said" between Chemerinsky and Drake has not been fleshed out. It does seem to me thus far that Chemerinsky and his supporters are out in front of the story and spinning UC-I and Drake to be dukes of darkness. Sound familiar? Perhaps an enterprising blogger (but apparently, not KC) will get on the story and get at the truth, whatever it turns out to be.

Anonymous said...

When Chemerinsky made up that bs about prop 209, he dug his own grave. You're right though, the Chancellor never should have been so stupid as to try to bring him to OC.

I'm sick of this "academic freedom" excuse on why uni's should get to hire whoever they want and there is nothing anyone can do about it! Hold up. Last time I checked, UC-I wouldn't exist without the california taxpayers, orange county, or the individual generosity of the people (including many, many "orange county conservitives").

Oh yeah. Chemerinsky was wrong. The measure passed, and there haven't been problems. Chemerinsky is free to go anywhere else in the world, but he's not welcome in California.

Anonymous said...

It seems that race-based hate groups have moved on. Now, the pet cause for NAACP and Al Sharpton is Jena6. For those who haven't followed it closely, it is pretty straighforward story. A white student was attacked and severely beaten by a group of african-american students (who were athletes). White student survived and the 6 african-americans stand accused of attempted murder.
Hate industry calls these AA students as "star athletes", "good kids" while (white) prosecutor is called Nifong, and racist.
AA community wants the charges dropped and everybody who disagrees is a racist.

The names and pictures of the accused are not on the cover of Newsweek and the crime did occur. To my knowledge, prosecutor has not lied to court and Klu Klux Klan is not there demanding the castration of the black students.

This is another depressing story and shows that NAACP and AA community has not learned anything.

Anonymous said...

beware what you ask.....
KC may be going to Israel but (surprise, surprise) they have internet access there. You can't birth a baby like DIW and then abandon it like an old shoe. KC will be checking in with us from time to time and those of us who recognize class and honesty will check the website frequently. You on the other hand, still have your heroes--Mikey, Vicky, Houston, Wah Wah Knee Ma, KKKarla, Brian Lyin, Got lies, Will-sin, et al. Matter of fact, why don't you hop in bed with them (as if you haven't already). If you watch carefully, you might discover reality. Not that you will recognize it, but it will jump up and find you eventually.

KC, thanks again for everything.

Anonymous said...

The NAACP and some people in the the AA community know all they need to know - skin color is all that matters. Nothing else is of import - not guilt or innocence, not personal responsibility, just skin color. So, no, they haven't learned, because in their minds, there is nothing to learn.

Anonymous said...

10:30 AM - a blog tracking them would be wonderful.

I wonder if they will take a hit with students ignoring their classes.

Anonymous said...

Klan88 is now in charge at Harvard. Sad, but true. It seems that anti-semitism, ignorance and Race Preferences (so called "AffAact") go hand in hand.

"President Summers's failings famously included insufficient celebration of the rap stylings of Professor Cornel West, who left in a huff for Princeton. Now things are looking up at Harvard. Last week the Crimson reported the return of a scholar of global hip-hop culture who was denied tenure during the Summers era..

“The past five years reflect a period when Harvard’s black community felt particularly unwelcome and disenfranchised, mainly because the University’s leadership at the time was disinterested [sic] in, and even hostile toward matters of race and inclusion,.."

Anonymous said...

Given the coverage to date of the Chemerinsky/UC-I conflict, one would assume that Michael Drake is white, California neo-con. Uhmm...not quite. In fact, Drake is a 57 year old African-American who is widely respected in California higher education circles and is a self-professed liberal. His mother was a social worker and his father a psychiatrist who ran a clinic for low-income patients out of their home.

A recent LA Times article describes Drake as a man who has "...championed diversity in student recruitment and helped launch a program to improve Latino healthcare. He is uniformly described as an extroverted, natural leader with a strong ethical compass."

The Drake colleagues quoted in the article seem to think that there must be more to the story than has been reported so far.

I'm reserving judgment until the facts are fully canvassed.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 10:30 wrote "Based on what I have read about the UC-I debacle, the central facts are still in dispute and the "he said/he said" between Chemerinsky and Drake has not been fleshed out. It does seem to me thus far that Chemerinsky and his supporters are out in front of the story and spinning UC-I and Drake to be dukes of darkness. Sound familiar?"

You're right; there is definitely something missing to the story. The LA Times article drew too neat of a conclusion re. conservatives objecting to the appointment. Also, it is very troubling that while at Duke, Chemerinsky seemed to ignore a gross civil rights violation "in his backyward." Chemerinsky "would've, could've should've" stood shoulder to shoulder with James Coleman, but he did not. I don't know enough to comment one way or the other on this case, but I get the definite impression that the public does not yet have all of the information to form an opinion on whether or not he was wronged.

Anonymous said...

Why does the failure to hire of a qualified liberal Professor prompt a "firestorm" of crticism.

These circumstances occur every day to conservatives.

Perhaps the Chancellor wants to balance his school.

Anonymous said...

9:58 says:

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.

Perhaps it will be like the deafening silence when the nutjobs in Durham didn't stand up for three innocents. The screams after the payouts will be interesting.

Steven Horwitz said...


How "severely" the white student was beaten is open to debate. He was injured for sure, but he was released from the hospital the same day he was treated.

"Barker was taken to the hospital with injuries to both eyes and ears as well as cuts. His right eye had blood clots, said his mother, Kelli Barker. Justin Barker was treated and released that day."

That is not, in my book, a "severe" beating, though a beating nonetheless. Attempted murder charges were grossly disproportionate to the crime in this case, at least from what I can see, and the DA's behavior was in the Nifong ballpark. The issues of DA overreach and overblown charges do parallel the Duke case, but with the important difference that there WAS an underlying attack here. Something DID happen and those who beat that young man deserve punishment of some sort.

And the hypocrisy of the hand-wringing by Jackson, Sharpton, and various other persons/groups who were either silent or on the wrong side of the Duke situation deserves the brightest spotlight possible.

It also suggests that the problems with Nifong were not just "local" or individual, but evidence of deeper rot within the legal system, especially the degree of discretion given to DAs. It also supports the argument made here many times that it is persons of color who have the most to lose from overreaching DAs and from the loss of the presumption of innocence, and by casting their lot with Nifong et. al., they were ignoring history and setting themselves up for future disaster.

Penny said...

So, no, they haven't learned, because in their minds, there is nothing to learn.

Worse, it has never crossed their misdirected race oriented brains that a rogue prosecutor like Nifong working in tandem with bad cops is a direct threat to the black community too. If I was a black in Durham I'd be demanding a review of every case that Nifong prosecuted and every criminal charge that Gottlieb was involved in. I'd welcome the LAX player's lawsuit as a blessing.

This whole sordid saga is the terminal end of decades of leftist driven victim politics. There can be no dialogue or reform in this country when pc laws forbid examing the misbehaviors of designated protected groups. When Bill Cosby suggested that ghetto blacks need to take responsiblity for their situation and pathologies, the backlash from the NAACP was swift in coming.

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised that the RRHs and Jamil Husseins on this blog have been silent on the Megan Williams Rape & Torture.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Justin Barker, the "victim" in the Jena incident, bring a gun to school? Why wasn't he arrested nor charged with a crime?

wine country dude said...


Chemerinsky is not my choice, and maybe not yours either as a substantive matter, but I respect your comments.

But check out the SF Chronicle this morning ( The Regents planned to have Larry Summers talk, but his presence stirred the usual suspects to protest.

This the former Secretary of the Treasury--what was he, fifth in line to succeed to the Presidency at one point?--and former President of Harvard, and he doesn't even get to SPEAK to the Regents?

This is insanity. How can anyone possibly respect those who would bar Summers from speaking? But those protesting will be the first to inveigh against the apparent inability of Chemerinsky to get hired as UCI Dean.

mac said...

Anon 1pm,

Looks like that case - (the Megan Williams case) - is proceeding. Why should we bang pots? If they're guilty, and found guilty, then we'll comment. We're not gonna jump on your bandwagon just because you said to. Remember the "presumption of innocence?" The right that your type of people failed to acknowledge in the Duke Lacross Burning?

BTW, we also - (for the most part) - held off on judgment on the Mike Vick case.

And where were you, troll, when the Tennessee couple was raped, tortured and mutilated?

Go back under your slimy rock.

Anonymous said...

The anon troll from 1:22PM says:

Didn't Justin Barker, the "victim" in the Jena incident, bring a gun to school? Why wasn't he arrested nor charged with a crime?

Can you provide any links to back up either of these assertions framed as questions?

Debrah said...

TO Jimmy @ 10:05 AM--

Sorry for the late reply.

I didn't see your comment earlier and had to go out for a while.

Very funny. I think Rufus does quite a good job prancing in his tights.

About Lopez....he certainly isn't impressive at all so far. The city leaders wouldn't have chosen him if they were not confident he would tow their line.

(He's even married to a black cop.)

Bill Bell and Thomas Stith were debating a bit on At Issue today. I didn't watch it, but saw a glimpse in passing.

I sure hope Durham gets socked with a huge settlement, though.

Sorry. LIS!

Anonymous said...

Mr Horwitz - You are right. If released the same day, the "beating" could not have been that severe. Still a punch out , but he did not end up in ICU.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:58 said...

....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.
What better 'fix' is there in the USA than reading about a town and a university who just ignore the Rule of Law; practice jihad on young people and then regularly shoot themselves in the foot without any warning.

You know of a movie or anything on TV that could trump that?

Anonymous said...

It pains me to difffer on the Chemerinsky matter but I must.

Chemerinsky has been force-fed to LA Times readers for years. I for one had hoped his departure to Durham had ended that tediously predictable source of commentary for the LA Times.

His possible return as Dean to an as yet unopened law school has caused many of us to hurl down our surf boards and email support for UCI's sensible decision to find someone else for the job.

True, our position is counter to that of the LA Times which insists that Chemerinsky has a "right" to the job. But UCI is perfectly within its rights to insist on a full-time Dean, not a cause absorbed man who will obviously not be AWOL from campus physically and mentally.

His politics are not irrelevant either: While conceding that he is a pleasant man, many of us do not see the benefit of appointing a polarizing man with a one-dimensional passion for liberties: he is there in a heartbeat for Guantanamo internees, holding the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, Valerie Plame's now dismissed civil suit (to ention only three).

He is AWOL if its not on his preferred list of beneficiaries: his rather studied decision to avoid informing himself of the Duke lacrosse case is itself astonishing: living and teaching in Durham he was nonetheless ab;e to be tepid about the rights of the accused? That is a perfect example of his one-dimensioal approach to civil liberties. He is more polarizing than unifying and that's hardly what you want as a law School Dean.

Don't be impressed with the LA Times' rather lopsided coverage of this matter. It's been a Chemerinsky backer for decades. it won't jump to find or print opposing opinions. Local blogs (e.g. Patterico) can provide what the Times elects to omit or to which it only grudingly links on line but not in print.

Anonymous said...

Steven Horwitz @ 12:20 Re: the Jena six

Something that you might want to consider is that one of the accused, who has already been found guilty of aggravated second-degree battery (and conspiracy to commit the same), had a juvenile record which showed that he had been previously convicted of four other crimes (source: Wikipedia).

This is not a case about star athletes who had a record of community service, good grades, good manners, etc.

This is about a much baser element in our society -- involving both the accused and the local society in which they live.

At the risk of offending many fine people who live in Lousiana, ... that state harbors some of the more extreme elements of racism, both white and black. I know. I experienced it first hand some years back.

Anonymous said...

New Durham Chief of Police Jose Lopez has said that the Durham Police is more than the Duke lacrosse case. Maybe so, but the actions of a few are the ones that tainted the entire department and therefore warrants an in-depth investigation into the procedural violations that led to this infamy. Until he realizes that, he will just continue to sweep this under the rug since it had not occurred under his watch and lest he offend his predecessor. Not showing enough balls already eh.

Anonymous said...

How "severely" the white student was beaten is open to debate..he was released from the hospital the same day he was treated.

I don't see how it is relevant that the victim was released the same day. Often, a shooting victim is released the same day (yet it is still severe incident and always attempted murder).

The truth is that 6 "heroes/good kids/star athletes" attacked one white student and it was pretty serious incident. Anyway, it is clearly something that the jury can consider. Maybe jury decides that it was not attempted murder (only second-degree battery etc), but in anycase, I don't see any problems with the prosecution of the case, apart from the heated rhetoric from the usual race-based hate groups.

The contrast with Jena6 (and other numerous incidents where african americans attacked whites) and Duke hoax is enormous. I hope the next president finally gets rid of race-preferences, and universities would clearly mark tenured positions either as merit-based or race-based.

Anonymous said...

KC: Trying to buy the book again at B& N. None in stock. Went across the street to "Books A Million" and they have them and are GLAD to sell them to you.

Yeahhhh.. A place to go NOW.

Anonymous said...

I was trying to buy the book at JFK (can't remember the name of the chain) and spend the next 8 hours with the book. No such luck. They had never heard of UPI. Boring flight.

Anonymous said...

Gary at 3:39 -- not only do they keep shooting themselves in the foot -- they will soon be shooting each other in the feet/knees/wherever as the lawsuits and/or Federal indictments begin to roll.

Unknown said...

Those boots are made for walkin', oh yeah. Dang, I promised myself I wouldn't mention boots. Carp - there I go again.

I saw a bit of the "debate" and what amazed me is just what an inarticulate man Bell is. I had to turn the volume way up and still couldn't understand his mutterings. He was talking to the table top.

Stith - who knows. He is a bit clearer in his speech and thinking, but that's damning with faint praise.

Back to having a great weekend. Can't believe I will have to watch television instead of read KC.

Anonymous said...

Jimmy... go to BOOKS A MILLION and buy the book! If they had enough foresight to stock it, we should buy it from them and not the nut-cases at B& N who hide it on the bottom shelf under "True Crime".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I'm not surprised that the RRHs and Jamil Husseins on this blog have been silent on the Megan Williams Rape & Torture.

9/16/07 1:00 PM

This is the first time I've seen this case mentioned on this blog. Anyway, what do you think I should say about it?


Anonymous said...

Steven, regarding the injuries to the victim in the "Jena 6" matter: The severity of the injuries to the victim are a concern in a civil trial for damages. A criminal trial focuses on the actions and intent of the wrongdoer(s).

For instance, a robber comes in and points a gun at a storeowner; the storeowner pulls out his own gun and shoots and wounds the robber, who is then arrested on the spot by police. The robber got nothing but a bullet for his trouble -- So we shouldn't charge him with attempted armed robbery?

Anonymous said...

To Anon. at 2:36:

For background on the Jena Six case, go here.

A gun was pulled on a student, Robert Bailey, at the Gotta Go convenience store. This is the same Robert Bailey who'd been beat up the previous night for trying to attend a party. Bailey and his friends wrestled the gun from the (unnamed) white assailant, and were charged with theft of a firearm.

The next school day, Justin Barker boasted about how bad Bailey had been beaten up the previous Friday. He was jumped later that day, and looked like this after the beating. After leaving the hospital, he went to his class Ring Ceremony.

The commenter above notes that Barker was later arrested for having a loaded rifle and some bullets in his truck while it was parked in the school parking lot. He claimed to have forgotten they were there. As someone from Louisiana himself, I can't help but say that sounds completely plausible.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Horwitz,

If you had been subjected to the same beating I suspect you would have deemed it maximally severe.

But then it would have been about *you* and not someone else.

Anonymous said...

Chemerinsky should have never been offered the job as dean. But as many of his supporters feel sorry for him to have been publicly "fired", he did the same thing to UNC Law.

It takes some 9 months plus to come to the candidate of your choice. After thousands of dollars are spent and countless months narrowing the search to one candidate, finally releasing all the other candidates, and then making an offer to the top candidate. And then the "give and take" that it takes for the school and candidate agree on the contract. It is a very long process. As many have said UCI should have known everything about Chemerinsky.

Well the same could be said about what Chemerinsky did to UNC. After all that process, he publicly stated he could not go because of the funding. He knew that before he signed. After that, all the other candidates were gone, and it made it hard to make an offer to someone else. Let's not cry too much for Mr. C.

Chemerinsky has not really given a believable reason why he did not make a contribution to the defense of due process in the Duke case. It has been reported that Mr. C is on the board of the NC ACLU. The average person would think that this is the type of case the ACLU would gladly be a part of. On 9-14 in the LA Times he stated that deans should speak out on important issues. Is Duke not important?

Could it be that he was looking for a job? First the UNC job, then the Duke Law dean job, and finally the UCI. Who knows, he may still be looking for one even as we speak. I don't know how many readers have ever been to southern California. If you have never been to Irvine, trust me, the choice between Durham and Irvine is easy to make. Irvine is God's country.

I can imagine how ticked Chemerinsky must be. First Duke hires a dean from California, and then he gets turned down by a school in California. The fact that he taught in CA for decades and was never offered the job as dean, I'm sure he would have loved to gloat at his old colleagues at USC.

Chemerinsky states in the LAT 9-14:
"My concern is that the message from this episode, especially for my more junior colleagues who may aspire to be deans someday or, for that matter, judges, is that if you speak out -- liberal or conservative -- you may lose your chance at a position that you really want."
It’s interesting that he mentioned judges, since he testified against Alito in effort to prevent his confirmation even though the ABA had Alito as very qualified. He also spoke against Roberts, because of his judicial philosophy.

Teachers, professors, instructors have academic freedom. Administrators do not. No one has the right to be a dean or administrator. There is no tenure for administrators. Mr. C could be the best law scholar in the universe, but that does not make him a good dean. That requires a different skill set. Do not embarrass, bring in lots of $$, and professors.

If anyone compares Dean Levi and Mr. C, you can see why one got the job and the other one did not. Dean Levi’s public temperament is so different than Chemerinsky. I would imagine their politics are very much the same. Duke would not hire a conservative dean for their law school. (Or a loud mouth)

One of the needed skills is to be able to raise funds. Look where UCI is located. Though it is really not as conservative as most people think, they are not likely to give money to someone who thinks we should ban the Pledge, fights against Prop 209 (which passed), thinks the Christian right is an enemy to freedom, and fights for the rights of the terrorist in Guantanamo but not for students at his university.

Where is he going to go for money? It's a new school. No alumni. He can't go to his old stomping grounds at USC. He can't go north, that's UCLA country, he can't go south, that's UCSD country, he can't go east, that's UCR country and they were competing with UCI for a law school.

So that leaves Irvine. When you're starting, you need big money. Not $1000 gifts. You have to tap the billionaires. The ones that will give you $1,000,000 and invite their friends to also write checks. Now they are conservative. And to many of them, Chemerinsky looks like someone who hates America and its traditions.

So, what would the LA Times and all the Chemerinsky supporters think if the dean position was offered to Robert Bork, or Ken Starr (currently at a private school), David Limbaugh (brother of Rush)?

Steven Horwitz said...


I said it was a beating and I said they deserved punishment. I'm simply not convinced, based on the evidence I've seen, that the beating was severe enough to warrant the charges handed down (even given the record of the one young man).

The law does not care what the victim's perception was, it cares, or should care, about how the circumstances meet the definitions of the crimes being charged.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 9:52:

I'm an expert in race-inflected beatings in Louisiana, and as such, I can tell you: I feared for my teeth, not my life. Good 'ol boys give great 'ol beatings in the South. It's a tradition. I'm not condoning it, but white or black, white on black, black on white, it's a fact of life in Louisiana. So yes, I can say that had Horwitz been subjected to a similar beating under similar circumstances, he likely wouldn't have deemed it maximally severe.

Anonymous said...

Steven, they may have deserved discipline, but surely not punishment. I'm not condoning the behavior of the white kids who jumped Bailey nor that of Bailey and his friends ... but this kind of beating occurs all the time in Louisiana. The difference between this instance and others isn't the severity of the beating, but the temerity of the DA to charge one party for retaliating.

This whole thing started over a black student who tried to sit under a "white" tree, remember. Then the white students hung nooses from that tree. Then Bailey and his friends were jumped at a party they'd been invited to. Such is life in the South. If the DA went after every such incident, well, not that many kids would make it out of high school. (Unless they were in a magnet or gifted program, but even then, it's a coin toss.)

Anonymous said...


If it's the punishment that concerns you, I'd point out while "Attempted murder" may sound a lot worse than "Aggravated second-degree battery" (the most likely alternate charge), it appears that one can get a sentence of as little as 10 years for the former and as much as 15 years for the latter.

Do you know what the sentence was in this case?


Anonymous said...

sek speaks the truth. And yes, it's not much understood outside the South. And no, no one wants to find themselves knocked into a Houston gutter and watch their pearlies bounce like chicklets across the pavement. So mind your manners. :)

Anonymous said...

sek said ...

Then Bailey and his friends were jumped at a party they'd been invited to.

Actually the site you provided earlier indicated that they just "showed up" at a party to which they had not been invited. This is often a good way to end up with bumps and bruises.

From sek's site: "On Dec. 1, there was a private, invitation-only birthday party at the Fair Barn. Around 11 p.m., five black students tried to come into the party but were told by a woman that they weren't allowed inside without an invitation."


Anonymous said...

btw, re. the decision to charge with "attempted murder": My guess is that you'd find that the defendant refused to plea to a much lesser offense. The upside of pleading out is that the charges are usually much reduced from those that could be brought.


Anonymous said...

And the adults in charge are all Democrats. The DA is one, the principal, all the board, but one is a Dem, the governor is one-- so what's happening? Usually it's the Republicans that get all the heat.

Anonymous said...

There are some differences of opinions as to what happened to the Jena 6.

Mychal Bell before the beating:
arrested for battery 12-25-05
damage to property 7-25-06
another battery charge 9-06
damage to property 9-06
So, he has been adudicated or convicted of 5 crimes of violence. He's been in trouble with the law since he was 15. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. He was still on probation with his first offense, when he commited the second. I believe the judge he had on the 5th offense was the same one he had had on the 1st.

The school has a zero tolerance for fighting. You fight, you're out.

The party was "invitation only." The blacks tried to "crash" the party. (As has been stated, the whites are racists) They were asked to leave and would not. A fight started. A white kit was arrested, but copped a plea. the black kids could have too, but they refused to.

The incedent at the Gotta Go store is said to have gone like this. Robert Bailey and friends were leaving the store. The white kid was going to the store. The blacks started to go for him, he ran to his vehicle and got his weapon. Bailey and friends took it away from him and punched his girlfriend who was in the vehicle. The store clerk witnessed. The witness called the police.

There have been 2 FBI and 1 Justice Dept (2 are black) agents investigating this.

All the leagal documments should be available soon-(except juvi records)

Black or white, where are the parents?

Anonymous said...

RRH: Them being invited -- they had a friend inside -- and them being jumped when they got there aren't mutually exclusive events. Hate to say it, but that happens all the time. Yes, obviously, it's juvenile ... but we're talking about juveniles here, so don't try to use adult logic against me, as it doesn't obtain.

Anonymous said...

Quickly, I want to apologize if the previous comment sounds intemperate. It is, only my annoyance isn't aimed at RRH. The problem's that things haven't improved in my home state yet. I know most folks around here don't believe I didn't call for KC's dismissal from Cliopatria despite my clarifications, but ignore my reputation momentarily: I'm clarifying my tone in the previous comment right now, all immediately-like, because my annoyance hit the wrong target.

I just want my home state to enter the 19th Century already ...

Anonymous said...

SEK at 12:17am

"but ignore my reputation momentarily"

Dude, relax. Its after sundown. It's a new day.

Debrah said...

Can someone please drop this Jena 6 business?

This is not an issue here.

I'm sick of reading about this.

Anonymous said...

off topic--

OJ arrested and NO BAIL

It's too much to dream he'll finally go to jail.

Anonymous said...

re: Chemerinsky's job offer withdrawal-

I still say his silence in the Duke Lacrosse Burning demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to stand up to his fellow faculty when they're in the wrong. Such inability merely distasteful in a professor, but as Brodhead has demonstrated it's disastrous in an administrator.

Debrah said...

To Ralph--

This is the story:

Drake on Chemerinsky

Debrah said...

It seems now that Drake traveled to NC this weekend and Chem and he ironed some things out.

Too funny.

Chem finally weasels his way into the job

Anonymous said...


you need to form a new blog: :)

Anonymous said...

Myrtle Beach is full of rich retired yankees - not too many red necks there.
Good for Erwin - another one escapes Durham. I bet he thought he was in h^^^.

LarryD said...

We could take the Chemerinsky thread over to Patterco

Patterco, who does not think too highly of Chemerinsky, none the less holds the position that UCI entered into a contract and should honor it.

Anonymous said...

>>>Baker is now saying that it was all Mike Nifong’s fault for forcing Mark Gottlieb and Ben Himan to appear before the grand jury: “I don’t know that there was any constitutional authority for us to say, ‘You know, Mr. District Attorney, we’re not going to answer your subpoena to testify in front of the grand jury. We think it’s time to shut [the case] down.’”<<<

Um, isn't that called the Nuremberg defense? And how well did that work the first time?

Anonymous said...

Not even close to the Nurenberg defense. The Nazis were responisble for murdering millions and a lot more. Easy to play fast and loose with other people's jobs. Did they lie to the GJ? If they did, they must be punished.