Wednesday, March 05, 2008


This blog began in an attempt to analyze the twin scandals of spring 2006: the transparent signs of Mike Nifong’s prosecutorial misconduct; and the decision of Duke faculty activists—personified by the Group of 88—to set aside the academy’s traditional fidelity to due process and instead advance their personal, pedagogical, of ideological agendas on the backs of their own students.

Gradually, the blog expanded to include coverage of the media, the Duke administration, the intersection between politics and the law, the role of the police, and the dubious record of the SANE nurse.

The blog provided live coverage from North Carolina and analysis of the fall 2006 hearings and all major 2007 events related to the case:

The blog also summarized and analyzed:

  • all filings by the Bar and Nifong in the ethics proceeding;

The blog provided the most comprehensive analysis of the activities of:

The blog’s media analysis included the only overviews of coverage by:

On the media front, the blog also featured regular critiques of the pro-Nifong coverage on the New York Times (ranging from columnists Selena Roberts and Harvey Araton to reporter Duff Wilson and public editor Byron Calame) and the Durham Herald-Sun (including the work of editor Bob Ashley and reporter John Stevenson).

The blog provided extensive coverage and analysis of the Duke faculty’s rush to judgment, including:

  • an analysis of the pedagogical interests of the Group of 88;
  • a profile of the spring 2007 “clarifying” faculty;

In a 13-part series, the blog profiled some of the Group of 88 members, explaining the connection between their scholarship and their guilt-presuming approach to the case.

The blog also explored the administration’s:

The blog highlighted the most outrageous quotes of the case; along with some of the best work.

The blog was the first to report several case-related items, including:

  • Mike Nifong loaning his campaign nearly $30,000 at about the same time he took over the lacrosse case, six weeks before the May 2006 primary;
  • The first publication of Crystal Mangum’s March 16, 2006 police photo, which showed that she had no bruises, despite police claims;
  • The revelation that Nifong citizens’ committee co-chair Victoria Peterson had advocated burning down the lacrosse captains’ house;
  • The refusal of the state NAACP’s case monitor and legal redress committee chair to challenge in any way Nifong’s procedural irregularities;
  • The full details of the potbangers’ late March/early April 2006 crusade;
  • Group of 88 member Grant Farred publicly asserting that unnamed lacrosse players committed perjury;
  • Uncovering that despite the statement’s claims, five academic departments had, in fact, not endorsed the Group of 88’s ad;

  • Duke’s suppression of a lacrosse team-led October 2006 voter registration drive.

Blog Statistics

Between August 28, 2006, and December 11, 2007, when the blog went on hiatus, Durham-in-Wonderland had 3,517,151 unique visitors and 6,248,329 hits.

These visitors came from all 50 states and from 134 countries (Fiji, Anguilla, Cuba, Saint Kitts & Nevitts, Grenada, Guatemala, Bolivia, Paraguay, Antigua and Barbuda, Northern Mariana Islands, Lebanon, Yemen, Qatar, Ghana, Benin, Nigeria, Mali, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Laos, Malawi, Dominican Republic, Luxembourg, Moldova, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Kenya, Senegal, Djibouti, Honduras, Iceland, Malta, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Slovenia, Zambia, Vanuatu, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Netherlands Antilles, Ecuador, Argentina, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Croatia, Montenegro, Uganda, Kenya, Bahrain, Pakistan, Palau, Taiwan, Cambodia, Nepal, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, Jamaica, Bahamas, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Iceland, Ireland, Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, India, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Vietnam, China, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Aruba, Dominica, Venezuela, Morocco, Lithuania, Cote D’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, and Gambia).

[Updated, March 6:] The blog had 1,173 posts, totaling 923,723 words. It attracted just over 100,000 comments.


Chicago said...

KC-Here is to hoping you will do an analysis on the latest suit filed by the 3 unindicted players despite the hiatus? Will anything be forthcoming? (fingers crossed)

Anonymous said...

Happy Holidays and Happy 2008 to you. Enjoy your hiatus. We'll patiently await your commentary on the pending suits and the response, if one is ever filed, by the city.

Anonymous said...

I also believe that K.C. Johnson broke the news about Mike Nifong's election campaign accounts, loans, etc. If I remember correctly some of those posts showed the huge loan Nifong took out to get the DA position, as well as the large advertisement buys from the Herald-Sun, which, in turn, coincidentally provided very pro-Nifong coverage. Those were some very important posts. Don't forget those, K.C.!

Gary Packwood said...


It is difficult to write a Glossary in the first place and this one is similar to describing the moving parts of a jet engine in mid-flight.

You are missed KC.

Anonymous said...

You are missed, Professor Johnson, but please use the time off to rest and relax. Things might get really interesting in the New Year and we will need you!

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Tina in MD

Anonymous said...

Has anyone besides me noticed that since the blog has gone on hiatus a number of KC's detractors have come out of the woodwork? It's sad to me that none of the Group of 88 have answered the questions of their own students and alumni (much less those posed by KC) and are now taking pot shots at KC.

Claire Potter and others have made demonstrably false statements and ran away, deleted comments, refused to respond to posts and generally hid their heads in the sand while KC was asking them to defend their actions. Now that he's not actively posting they have come out of the woodwork.

I'd like to ask Claire Potter, the 88, their defenders, and KC's detractors to kindly respond to the 10 questions that were posed by Duke Students For and Ethical Durham. Once these questions have been asnwered we can begin a real dialogue about the issues you're now blogging about. Until then, you're just another "tenured radical" who is content to lie with impunity and refuse to take respobnsibility for it.

Michael said...

There were the live blogs too.

Anonymous said...

What a truly monumental and significant undertaking this blog has been.

And the long-term influence which will redound from this blog and from UPI are incalculable.

Thanks, KC for the glossary, for the hard and faithful work.

Enjoy some rest.

Please come back as things unfold.


Anonymous said...

KC - Bravo!

Love the interest from ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR countries.

Unbelievable. How about a list of the 134 countries? It is fascinating that interest would circle the Globe.

Anonymous said...

Without a doubt KC, this has been a truly impressive blog performance. You have demonstrated the power of the web blogger over the conventional print media; I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it unfold on this page. All the best to you in the New Year; keep safe.

Not the Mayor

Anonymous said...

Hi KC,
Hope all is well in Israel. The suit by Bob Ekstrand makes for compelling reading-- see:

I hope you will comment on it at some time.

W. R. Chambers said...

The glossary shows what an extraordinary accomplishment DIW is.

Anonymous said...

Duke Students for an Ethical Durham reports that Kim Coles is leaving Duke along with her husband Rom Coles.

Anonymous said...

Well, we're not really patient anymore. Please join us for this!! It's a pivotal moment.

The new Complaint is extraordinary, not just skeleton's filled with meat. I always liked Bob Ekstrand a lot based on UPI, and he has really gone the long yard on this. He has done the absent Anna Wagoner's work for her, essentially, and he's done it quite well.

President Brodhead and Bob Steel have completely lost their credibility. The tangle of adult lies, including those of Brodhead and Steel, stands in such amazing contrast to the simple honesty of the kids.

I consider the Complaint a must-read for every Duke parent and alum and potential Duke parent.

And, it really should be read in tandem with the Blue Committee Report, just for added effect.

The chickens have come home to roost in a way we've not seen before. Now we are getting somewhere...

THANK YOU BOB EKSTRAND, the McFayden's, the Wilson's, and the Archer's!!

This is a most positive step for Duke.

Anonymous said...

It's unfortunate that none of the people responsible for what happened have accepted that responsiblity. If the City, DPD, Duke, and the press had been truly responsible, acknowledged their mistakes, their wrongdoing and taken appropriate actions, all this (not just DiW) could be over.

Since civil litigation is the only way the full truth will come to light and appropriate punishments will be administered, this will not be over for many years.

The Epilogue could end up running longer than the blog but it will all be good. The people now in jeopardy all deserve to be there.

Anonymous said...

All of us that have followed this evil, twisted saga for the last year and 1/2 half have been in constant danger of being pushed into insanity.
There has always been more than enough dark-energy here to overload even the most resolute and stable-minded personalities.

Anonymous said...

I'm only about half-way through the filing noted above. Wow!

No wonder Duke settled!

The Duke senior folk cannot be happy with this turn of events! The Duke Administration must have hoped that the details in that document would remain out of the public domain, or at least not so tightly packaged and so easily available. If Durham had agreed also to settle, Duke would have maybe managed it.


Anonymous said...

For whatever it is worth, Potter has a statement on TR alleging comment moderation has been turned off. I wonder how long that will last.
Mike Rayfield
Spring, TX

Anonymous said...

I hope one of the legacies of this blog is that it becomes THE standard by which all else are measured. Fair and balanced, well written and timely.

Anonymous said...

Gary Packwood inre: "...this one is similar to describing the moving parts of a jet engine in mid-flight."

I'm reminded of the description of a Helicopter "...15,000 independently-moving parts flying in formation."

Anonymous said...

The thought just occured to me that Kim Curtis, the unapologetic grade retaliator, may need to begin to call herself Mrs. Kim Coles so that her reputation doesn't precede her.

One would guess that being called Mrs. Coles would likely place inordinate duress upon a radical feminist.

Good luck Mrs. Coles.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead still at Duke? Could it be this simple?

After the bombshell news about another lawsuit, I spoke with my Methodist/Duke friend. She considers herself well informed on all things Methodist in NC, if not the world.

My question was why Brodhead was still at Duke?

Answer: “To not keep him would admit he had done something wrong, that Duke was wrong. And, what other top administrator would want to risk their reputation at Duke, while this circus is still in town?”

When wishful thinking Brodhead opined it was time to move on, he probably didn’t mean TO another lawsuit, but 'MOVING ON' he is.
“Be careful what you wish for... you just may get it.” Right?

mac said...

NJNP, it Kim "Grade Gremlin" Coles now?

What is Richard Brodhead gonna call himself? (What's his wife's maiden name, anyway?)

Hmmm. Looks like the legacies keep looming larger and larger, the 88's light at the end of the tunnel being like the proverbial train and all that?

Anonymous said...

re: "Good luck Mrs. Coles"

Given her track record she'll need it.

Anonymous said...

"What is Richard Brodhead gonna call himself? (What's his wife's maiden name, anyway?)"

I'm not sure, but I think it's Lubiano

Anonymous said...

The poster who so vigorously defended Tata Levicy must be having heart burn with this lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Good news:
University of Colorado Adopts Policy Protecting Students’ Academic Freedom · 18 December 2007

In Colorado, conservatives withdrew a legislative proposal for an "academic bill of rights" backed by Horowitz, but only after state universities agreed to adopt its principles.
Bad News:
Fostering a Free Exchange of Ideas · 13 December 2007

UW-Madison charged the University of Wisconsin College Republicans a $1,300 fee for security.

If opponents want to penalize an organization for bringing a speaker to campus — or force the organization to withdraw the invitation — the opponents merely have to threaten to disrupt the speech. The university adds security fees, resulting in a huge bill to the sponsoring organization.

More at:

Debrah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
river rat said...

As much as the "mob" in Durham and on the Duke campus despise what you've done --- my appreciation for your work and its impact, is immeasurable...

Most folks go though life without leaving anything of merit to give evidence of their passing though...
This will not be true of you and your work...

One of the few things I now look forward to in my senior years - it to witness the wrath of truth and revenge wreck havoc on the wrong doers in Durham and on the Duke Campus......

Yes, I know it isn't Christian to wish such things for others -- but until the consequences match the bad behavior, we can expect nothing but more of the same....

The "88" and President Brodhead need to revealed and reviled for their role and experience painful consequences for the rest of their miserable lives...right along side the criminals in the Durham P.D., Nifong, the "pot bangers" and the "citizens" of Durham who pushed the persecution.

Be proud....ya done good.

Anonymous said...

River Rat:

"The "88" and President Brodhead need to revealed and reviled for their role "

My suspicion is that President Brodhead was not the one pulling the strings at Duke. I look to Bob Steel, Chair of the BOT as the man who directed Duke's actions.


Anonymous said...

New Civil Lawsuit Filed in Duke Lacrosse Frame
Well Done.

Debrah said...

I'm so glad KC listed the numerous countries from where visitors to this blog came.


Anonymous said...

If there is one thing I know for sure is that this lawsuit is about the is about time the proper apologies are said...

Anonymous said...

KC thanks for all the time and effort you have put in on disclosing this case to the world.

It's my hope that by doing so will open up the same can of worms that exist all across the country and once exposed, hopefully will allow it to change!

mac said...

Reading the lawsuit portion against Levicy (on Liestoppers) is like re-reading some of the things posters (but more importantly, KC) had written with some frequency to Bigas' incoherent protestations.

I'm getting a renewed hope that the attorneys filing the suits against the likes of Levity et al are being allowed to finish their suits before the feds come marching in? (Homework, boys and girls: maybe the feds are waiting for their homework to get done for them, just before they turn it over to Teacher?)

One hopes.

And from the number of issues KC broke open, one also hopes that he'll get rewarded with something tangible, in addition to much credit. That is a good hope, and reasonable.


And still the 88 and Claire dream on, sickened like lost sailors adrift in salted delusion, way out of sight of any land, still hoping that a rape may have, somehow, magically occured.

One hope is not as good as another; some hopes have some basis in reality. Other hopes are rancid as fish heads and crabs mired in seaweed, stinking and based upon delusion.

Anonymous said...

Re: New Civil Lawsuit
Not knowing when they would be allowed to play lacrosse again at Duke, the sidelined players might consider a fresh start elsewhere. Articles like the following would surely add to their despair.
Syracuse University:
Duke Lacrosse Players Not Welcome

Syracuse University Athletic Director Daryl Gross told the Syracuse Post-Standard today that he [would not allow any Duke Blue Devils lacrosse players to transfer to the Syracuse lacrosse program.]...

“I think it would be inappropriate," Gross said.

(Another controversy concerning the Duke lacrosse players started at SU.)

Gary Packwood said...

traveler 11:40 12/21/2007

...My question was why Brodhead was still at Duke?

...Answer: “To not keep him would admit he had done something wrong, that Duke was wrong. And, what other top administrator would want to risk their reputation at Duke, while this circus is still in town?”
Circus she said!

What she is hearing is the sound of justice.

And who would want to risk their reputation at Duke now?

I can think of several who would like to help return Duke to ...Duke.

And start moving out hate and anger as a campus value.

Debrah said...

Zimmerman's at it again.

My comments left on his blog:

Debrah | December 21, 2007

Professor Zimmerman–

I must agree with poster “D” from Washington.

Your posts are descending into a very unclever place.

I’m not sure how much longer you and your friends can mine KC Johnson’s world in a feeble attempt to rewrite the history of the Lacrosse Hoax.

I’m even less sure that you possess enough objectivity at this point beyond the differentiation between a bass and a treble clef.

Are you also having difficulty writing new songs?


Debrah | December 21, 2007

“I appreciate not only Potter’s clear description of the context of Duke’s ‘perfect storm’ but also her frank acknowledgment of the human element–friendship, loyalty, and identification–in the reactions to such controversies.”

Such comments and concerns are grotesque.

Self-centered Kabuki theatre…….

…… the midst of the possibility that three innocent young men were being railroaded into a possible 30-year prison sentence.

No one is obligated to give paramount significance to such unbelievably personal issues.

Professionalism, anyone?

Anonymous said...

That lawsuit is filled with pain that is gonna hurt. It is now obvious to me why Duke settled (and will probably settle again), their leadership is abyssmal, anyone thinking of sending their kid there should read this filing first..
Sadly, I find it unbelievable that no Federal investigation has been launched (or State for that matter), my bet is that Duke, Durham and others will settle long before this gets to a jury, and the guilty, though less wealthy, will live on to to lie again somewhere. Prison is the only place for some of those named in this lawsuit.
KC, if DIW can't get the Feds involved, then nothing can. Your documentation of the case has been impecable. The government can put away a football player for 2 years for killing dogs (no, I am not saying that shouldn't have), but yet they choose to leave alone a cast of criminals who deprived 46 students of their rights, and systematically tried to use the judicial system against them, fabricated evidence, lied in court, violated inumerable statutes, and would have gladly killed (putting a 20 yr. old in prison for something he did not do is the same as killing him) 3 young men.
Thank you for all your great work..


becket03 said...

Liestoppers is reporting that Kim Curtis and her hubby are leaving Duke.


mac said...

Many of us are waiting for the attorneys to turn their attention toward...Nancy "The Resurrected" Grace, Wendy "Bad Witch" Murphy and Salmonella Roberts, as well as Bob "S#!+ Happened" Ashley.

Since they were acting on information provided by the current crop of adversaries/defendants, it makes sense that they would be the last ones named in a suit for defaming the entire Lacrosse Team and Coach Pressler; since they continued to pursue and proclaim the false charges, well after even the MSM saw that something was wrong with the case, it is clear that such a case would not fall into the vexatious litigation category, certainly not frivolous, and that any attempt by any of the principal actors in the Hoax (the 88 et al) to restore their own self-injured reputations would likely meet the definition of harrassing or even vexatious litigation. (My non-legal opinion.)

The grain fields are ready for harvest, some of the back fields still waiting for the scythes to begin their work.

Anonymous said...

I am just now getting a chance to appreciate the Glossary. It's beautiful.

For anyone who has not noticed, KC Johnson has given some thoughts about the new civil suit on a Liestoppers Discussion Board thread.

Anonymous said...

Re: Brodhead replacement
Gary Packwood said...
I can think of several who would like to help return Duke to ...Duke.
What would be the first order of business to return Duke to…Duke? It looks hopeless to me. How would anyone actually deal with the Gang of 88?(84)

Robert said...

One lingering question.

Did Duke pay for the group of 88 ad? If so who placed the group of 88 ad and who from Duke authorized its payment?

Anonymous said...

traveler: It might take some guts to move on this, but did the Gang of 88 not violate some kind of Faculty code when they participated in this kind of crap? If Brodhead weren't so spineless ( and being controlled by Steele) and more afraid of the biggots than the honest people, he would have thrown the book at them. They might have sued Duke, but IMO, they would have lost, and the $$ Duke would have spent in defending against them would have been a paltry sum compaired to what it is now in jeopardy for from the LAX suits.

Throw the bums out. Dissolve the PC committees. Certainly do NOT promote the idiots.

Brodhead is more afraid of the PCers than he is of the wise and good faculty at Duke, and of the Alumni.

The Blue committee was a whitewash. It said exactly what Steele told Blue to say. Money talks. What it says is sometimes not true, but at least it talks.

The problem is that only the loud-mouthed and belligerent are the marchers and protestors. Returning Duke to Duke involves that OTHER side of Duke. People who prefer to do things gently, intelligently, and behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those means do not attract a lot of attention and it is hard to find the supporters.

People who want to return Duke to Duke are going to HAVE to find each other somewhere. They / we have economic power and legal avenues, but we are not united...yet.

A blog for that purpose????

Debrah said...

The question ahead for those inside Wonderland is how committed are you to continuing after KC has closed this blog?

Will Gregory aka Tortmaster, Mac, Traveler, Spook, Amac, Stu Daddy, Observer, and so many others continue illuminating the truth as the Gang of 88 and their little loyal friends try to rewrite the story so they won't have to explain to their kids just how diseased is their brand of scholarship?

Zimmerman definitely plans to continue, but like Potter he pretends to allow free speech, yet cuts and splices comments which do not agree with him.

Zimmerman understands that I probably know more about the music world than does he and he always tries to hide my colorful metaphors which tell his story.

We must have a serious forum after DIW as a base. The Diva World is for mere embroidery. More people are needed to contribute to this mission.

Zimmerman tells us that he has another post ready for future coverage.....always about KC in one form or another.

None of our responses will be safe with people like these. There must be a forum as a base for us from which to spring.

We can make my little blog such a place with daily help from the rest of you.....however.....

....if a more generic and collegial format is desired, then some of you get busy constructing one.

Let me explain something of which you might already be aware:

When the Gang of 88 apologists go after people like me--especially the Diva--in a personally dismissive way, it is because my words cut to the core of their issues and I don't waste my time giving these dishonest disrespectful people....respect they have not earned.

People like John--whom I do respect --sanitize words for them and will never approach them in the way "haskell" has below.

This is the reality, folks.....and we must not lose sight of this fact......nor allow the 88 and their enablers to forget it:

"John, you miss the point, based on your first paragraph. The actions of the hardcore 88 were deliberate, cynical, and manipulative, intended to further their own racist and sexist agenda. As one of them stated, the facts did not matter. This behavior was, and is, inappropriate and unacceptable. Their actions have been shielded in a cloak of political correctness, bought and paid for by Duke money.

The behavior of these folks is much like the Cargo Culters. They see, cannot understand, and mimic to the best of their ability the processes of the academy. They have no substance, only form. They cannot use logic or reason, only write angry ad hominem attacks. They can only call KC names, and cannot answer his arguments or defend their own despicable behavior, understood only by their own group of True Believers.

Get a clue, John, you look like you are trying hard. But these are basically bad guys, many of whom have been honored by Duke University. Many of us are concerned about this, and KC's blog has turned out to be the forum for and vehicle of this concern."

Debrah said...

H-S letter:

Patrick Baker provided cover for politicians

Have you ever noticed that when you point your finger, three of your other fingers point straight back at you? Bill Bell and the City Council should well have remembered this before they used Patrick Baker as a politically expedient punching bag during his tenure the past three and a half years.

Placing blame and attempting to cover one's backside are political strategies as ancient as Adam and Eve; however, Bell, Howard Clement and Mike Woodard took this stratgey to new heights -- and depths -- as they tried to blame Baker for decades-long problems in Durham, many of which they perpetuated by their very own mismanagement.

I hear global warming is still a problem -- heck, let's blame Baker for that one, too.

As a native of Durham, I want to thank Patrick Baker for the dedication and class he has brought to the city manager's position. Durham is fortunate to retain him as city attorney. Unfortunately for the City Council, however, Baker is now stepping out of the Garden of Eden, so they will have to find someone else to blame.

December 22, 2007

Gary Packwood said...

traveler 12/22/2007 10:49 said...

...Re: Brodhead replacement
...Gary Packwood said...
...I can think of several who would like to help return Duke to ...Duke.
...What would be the first order of business to return Duke to…Duke? It looks hopeless to me. How would anyone actually deal with the Gang of 88?(84)
First, bring the entire $30M per year Office of Student Affairs under the tent with an absolute requirement that they support the mission of Duke University.

Second, formally support the long history of competitive athletics and affirm that competitive athletics will continue at Duke University.

Third, suspend the operation of the Women's Center (Safe Haven) until the BOT is satisfied that they are not building their programs by enabling students to hate other groups of students on the campus of Duke University.

Fourth, refer all individual students who need mental health 'support' to the Duke University Medical School section on Behavioral Health and forbid any group other than the medical school to program for mental health support.

Fifth, any request for programming from Anger Studies Department will be cleared through the Academic Dean's office six months in advance and any coordinated programming with the Office of Student Affairs is suspended indefinitely.

Sixth, continue to expand the DukeEngage program across campus to include a requirement that all Women's Studies and AAABlack Studies faculty members must actively participate each semester in a DukeEngage project that targets low income women and/or AABlack people in and about Durham, North Carolina in collaboration with the Duke Medical School and the Durham Public Schools.

Seventh, showcase the work of undergraduate students in the sciences, mathematics, engineering for a period of five years.

Eighth, authorize the Office of Sports Information to create a web site, Zine and award ceremony for all award winning student athletes in the public/private schools in and about Durham, North Carolina and promote that site and Zine as a model for the nation. The award ceremony is to be web based so that grandparents and other relatives across the world can watch and the re-revisit as often as they wish.

Ninth, create a graduate student pub on campus similar to the Rice University Pub which is named Valhalla. Undergraduate students are invited in for certain programs and at certain times...that will be coordinated with the coaching staff.

Tenth, The President and all undergraduate Deans are required to walk through an undergraduate resident hall one time each week and 'chat' with undergraduate students. Any President or Dean who does not know how to 'chat' with undergraduate students during a walk-through will be asked to move on to his/her next job.
Finger food will be made available for the walk through. Pizza and veggies.

Debrah said...

Observer has observed:

"For anyone who has not noticed, KC Johnson has given some thoughts about the new civil suit on a Liestoppers Discussion Board thread."

That blog has put forth some good work and they have amusing cartoons; however, I hope against hope KC hasn't hitched his wagon there.

There's always been a certain kind of "cretin-ism" about the place. The fact that someone like Jackie Brown was a highlight was a magnitudinous turn-off.

Debrah said...

From the Potter blog:

dorothy said...
Some of the questions asked upstream are addressed in a post today at

It written by Lubiano and is about the Taylor and Johnson book.


debrah said...
TO Dorothy--

It seems that Lubiano might need to put her efforts into finally getting a book published before another decade of "forthcomings" passes.

Most observers cannot comprehend such a lack of scholarship.

Illuminating this woman only draws more attention to her and her Duke colleagues' lack of substance.

Sad, that.

Anonymous said...

Since I do not expect my post at Potter's place to last long, I wanted to paste it here:


MYTH: "Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about why some people get to go to places like Duke and other people don't -- it is about class rage, it is about the collapse of opportunity for middle-class people who actually had wonderful college educations in their grasp a generation ago, and have now been shut out of them. It's about how some of us made it in, and slammed the door behind us."

Are you serious? This is what you think D-i-W was about? Does it always have to be about you? There are financial aid and loan packages at ALMOST EVERY American university which will ensure any qualified student can attend. I absolutely cannot believe that someone who works at a university can have this fact so upside-down. And, it is apparently the central thesis of your post. Bewildering.

You also wrote, in discussing the "profession" of History:

“[T]here is no dominant consensus in the profession at all as to whether objectivity is either possible or desirable....”

The politicization of academics, even History, but especially the sciences, will lead to the loss of credibility to the public. Why would a student in your class believe you are teaching actual History, or at least a good-faith attempt at actual History, rather than your particular "spin"?

It was not K.C. Johnson's fault that Mike Nifong unlawfully hid exculpatory evidence. It was not his fault that Crystal Mangum came forward with lies about a gang rape. Professor Johnson did not force the 88 Duke professors to sign the "Listening ad" and then refuse to acknowledge their participation in the parade of hatred. Actual "History" will show that Professor Johnson documented those actual actions with actual facts (and actual links).

These are my opinions. MOO! Gregory


Maybe it is fashionable for History professors to gussy up the facts of the Teapot Dome Scandal or the Missouri Compromise to keep their students' interest, but somehow I don't think it is right, or the norm.

Jim in San Diego said...

There is a sense of watching history in the making here.

The marriage of intense, intelligent investigative reporting and the internet on this blog have bred a new species of journalism.

This blog will be studied in journalism schools much like we now study the development of the local newspaper over the past two hundred years or so.

This is just the beginning. KC showed us how it can be done.

Jim Peterson

Conserve Liberty said...


12/21/07 11:16 PM

What if plaintiffs refuse to settle? What if their objective is to bring the entire matter into the public record and FORCE Duke clean its house?

We assume the goal is compensatory damages, but there are Causes of Action related to Witness Tampering, Fraud, Conspiracy, Obstructing Justice, Retaliation under color of law, and numerous actions in violation of 42 USC %1983.

Many of the 35 Causes of Action claim violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights under US and NC Constitutions.

I'm no attorney, and maybe this is how all civil lawsuits read, but a reasonable person reading this without background in the law would consider that these plaintiffs want something other than merely compensatory damages. There are too many causes of action claimed against persons to be just for money.

Does this read like the first step in a petition to award the entire Lacrosse Team status as a class?

Any attorney comments are appreciated.

Anonymous said...

I posted this on Potter's blog, and I don't think it will last, although, I do think it is fair:


I would like to know why so many posters, including pink 2, Sisyphus (love the name), Andrea, Tim Burke and Tim Lacey, gave TR a pass on her main thesis, which was:

"Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about why some people get to go to places like Duke and other people don't -- it is about class rage, it is about the collapse of opportunity for middle-class people who actually had wonderful college educations in their grasp a generation ago, and have now been shut out of them. It's about how some of us made it in, and slammed the door behind us."

Can anyone justify:

1. That D-i-W was about middle class people not getting into college; or

2. That middle class people cannot now get into colleges?


If K.C. Johnson EVER made an argument like that on D-i-W, I would have stopped reading his blog. Immediately.

A kind of velvet genderism allows certain protected individuals, and not others, to get away with gaffes, violations of law and logic and outright mean-spiritedness, apparently without fear of correction.

Professor Horwitz: I am much too tired to argue with you tonight! It would not be a fair fight. :) So, you win this round! I would note that if K.C. had not allowed free-flowing comments to his posts, it would have been seen by certain individuals as fascism, Horowitzianism, and so on. Again, the velvet racism/genderism.

Diva & Michael in NH: I think you give the blog author too much credit. Read the argument more carefully: D-i-W was about middle-class people not being able to get into college. It is so silly, I think you missed it! There can be no doubt this was Prof. Potter's final thesis, because she redundantly proclaimed it as such herself: "Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about ...."

These are my opinions. MOO! Gregory


Diva: I will certainly visit your site. Happy Holidays, everyone!!!!

Debrah said...

Take note how easily the student posting anonymously and making threats was tracked down.

If anyone receiving e-mail from someone wants to find who that person is.....they certainly can.

This kind of puts a kink in this issue, doesn't it?

Why would anyone receiving abusive e-mail not want to track down the offender?

Can the Gang of 88 explain that one?


Online message board draws fire

BY ANDREW DUNN : The Herald-Sun
Dec 23, 2007

DURHAM -- An Internet message board pledging anonymity to its users has caused a stir at Duke University because of potentially defamatory postings., whose founder was identified by Newsweek magazine as Duke alumnus Matt Ivestor, is becoming well-known among undergraduates as a breeding ground for hate speech and claims of impropriety against university faculty.

"I heard from a number of students who were distressed that their names were on it," said Donna Lisker, associate dean for undergraduate education. She said administrators had made inquiries into the site after a few students said they were considering legal action.

"It's an unfortunate side effect of anonymity," Lisker said. "It allows the worst side of students to appear." officials did not respond to requests for comment about the site, which, in essence, is the online iteration of graffiti on bathroom stalls.

Visitors can post whatever they wish, and others can vote whether they think the post was "juicy" or not.

Some of the most "juicy" posts include a personal ad for a man known as The Knight, an anti-Semitic diatribe about a particular student, a confession of love for a woman the poster saw in a library, and a plea to end homophobia.

Others include pointing out a student by name, and asking other visitors to speak ill of him or her.

"I've heard of the site before, but I didn't know I was on it until this morning," said freshman Justin Shin, who was the subject of one such post.

Shin speculated that about 80 percent of Duke undergraduates know of the site, and that he thinks a forum for free speech is a good idea.

"If they put it on a Web site, it doesn't really mean anything. I don't have a problem with it," he said.

But the site isn't even that innocent all of the time.

Other posts call out professors by name for having inappropriate relations with students, and a few even accuse university President Richard Brodhead and Provost Peter Lange of the same offense.

"I never knew about it, and I'm not much tempted to look at it," said professor Alexander Rosenberg, who was cited in such a post.

Rosenberg, one of the 88 faculty members who spoke out against the lacrosse players last year, said he expected attacks as new developments in the former rape case occurred.

"It may be partly political or from getting low grades," he said.

Susan Kauffman, director of communications for undergraduate education, said the university most likely will not take legal recourse.

"We're basically counseling students to disregard it," she said. "It's unfortunate, but we are not taking action."

The site, launched in August, is owned by the Nevada-based company Lime Blue. The Web site states that it was created to promote "online anonymous free speech on college campuses."

Currently, only Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, the University of South Carolina, the College of Charleston, Pepperdine University, the University of California-Los Angeles, and Loyola Marymount University are supported.

The student newspapers at several of those campuses, including Duke's Chronicle, have published editorials criticizing the Web site.

"It is despicable that this Web site has provided a marketplace of slander, but even more disconcerting is the fact that people have continued to post on it even as its deleterious effects become clear," the Chronicle wrote in a Nov. 9 editorial titled "Gossip Web site abuses free speech."

Though the site has not caused any legal action at Duke, it has at other campuses served by the site.

In Los Angeles, where Loyola Marymount is located, police arrested 21-year-old Carlos Huerta on Dec. 8 for posting a threat that he would shoot students at the school, according to a police department press release.

"We take any threat seriously and will quickly respond, track down those responsible for sending the messages, and we will arrest them," Deputy Chief Michael Downing, head of the LAPD Counterterrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, said in the release.

Other such anonymous message boards also have drawn criticism.

Several lawsuits were filed by Yale University law students after allegedly defamatory comments about them were posted on the message board.

Jim in San Diego said...

Just read the new civil complaint.

It is mindboggling in its broad scope and minute detail.

I do not recall ever seeing a
446(!) page civil complaint, in more than 20 years of legal practice.

The complaint identifies itself as not an attack on N.C. Justice, but as a Day of Reckoning for a "Consortium" to deprive Duke students of their Constitutional Rights.

The Consortium is identified by name and in detail. It includes everyone who has come under the microscope on this blog, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE.

Some attorney has done their homework.

We will now need KC to come off hiatus to guide us through this, I would think. The entire can of worms is now opened.

Luckily, virtually all the main actors are still around to take full credit - Brodhead, Steel,G88, Durham police, Nifong, etc., etc., etc.,

There is another book here.

There may also, finally, be a reckoning.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

So far the only beef is that the complaint doesn't yet (#145) make the point that the men's names will forever be tarnished by the frauds in academia, the media, and the abetting groups such at the NAACP.

For example, "...they were vilified before an audience of
millions, and they were irreparably harmed."

In fact they continue to be vilified and irreparably harmed.

Anonymous said...

How many of the Trinity Park permanent residents are Duke professors, administrators, or otherwise directly associated with Duke?

Debrah said...

Cynthia Degnan aka Mrs Brodhead

Dicky and Cindy Brodhead are very close to some who live in Trinity Park.

The proverbial "civic activists" of Durham.

Town and gown emollients.

And yes, there are supposedly many associated with Duke who live in Trinity Park.

The Lacrosse Hoax provided an uncommon incestuous effort.

Debrah said...

Just heard an hilarious end-of-year roundtable on the Sunday's NBC Chris Matthews show.

Listed among some very negative players of 2007 were Mike Nifong, Larry Craig, and Brittany Spears.


Debrah said...

If anyone inside Wonderland needs further proof as to the kind of strange person Durham council woman Diane Catotti is......

.....well, her latest morsels of wisdom are to tell all Durham residents to stop flushing public toilets in order to save water.

She proudly proclaims that she engages in this unsanitary and gross practice.

There has been great concern this past year on the water shortage resulting from the drought. Durham, as usual, with its inept leadership, is almost out of water.....unlike the rest of the Triangle; however, even Barry Saunders has come out against this practice with a comical response on a local news show.....making fun of Catotti.

I think this says all that needs to be said about some of the Durham Hoax enablers such as Catotti.


mac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Conserve Liberty...
I, probably like most on this blog would love the plantiffs to pursue all the way to a jury, the discovery IMO, will be very damaging. I am not a lawyer, but here is why I believve the case will settle short of that (unfortunately)...
1. The attorney's for the plantiffs are likely on a commission for the case, and as such, it is they who are putting up the up front costs of this litigation. The scope of the suit is huge, and the fees will be as well.
2. The goals of civil actions typically are financial reimbursement, payment for lost wages, punitive damages, and perhaps corrective actions. If the defense(s) make an offer that is reasonable, and it is refused, and the case goes to trial, this could go against the plantiffs, and make them look greedy, even if it is not their intent. A jury could be swayed if people are made to look greedy.
3. The cost of defense is going to be huge as well. The plantiff attorney's are not amateurs, they are experienced litigators and I bet would not bring these suits if they were not without some merit and if they did not think they would profit from them. Hence, both sides will look to settle on terms that they can live with, hopefully, far favoring the plantiffs. There is always some risk in pushing to a trial on both sides.
4. Duke has already shown a propensity to settle these suits as quicky as possible. My bet, they are already planning to compensate all remaining 44 players in some sort of settlement that protects them from more of these suits...

Now, having said that, The City of DumDums, has a more difficult position. They are getting sued now on 2 fronts, with risk of more. They have a difficult decision to make, fight the suits, which will be VERY costly, or settle, which is also going to be costly, or of course, fight some, settle others. At 30 million plus strong sanctions on one hand, and another suit just filed, the city is going to be forced to fight, however, if they can negotiate that down to a lesser degree, they may be able to get an all inclusive settlement, and, at least, cap their losses, which, If I were them, would be my strategy. Find a way to settle while allaying future risk.

I do have one other worry about NOT adding Crystal Magnum to the lawsuit. I am guessing there is a statute of limitations suits of this nature. What if, some scum bag like that Black Panther Lawyer, gets her to write a book (we all know she is FAR too stupid to probably even write, but some scum bag could write it, and she and others could profit from it) and profit from it. This moron of a woman has already displayed her greedy side, if she thought she could make money off this thing, she will. A lawsuit against her is the only way to prevent this from happening (like OJ book). I can just see Jesse Jackson coming down and "helping" her write a book that makes he and others a lot of money.
Finally, though I believe the cases will settle out of court, I also believe it will be with some sting to those named. Duke will likely have to implement reforms in their campus police dept, facutly and university judicial system, and be accountable for that. Durham will likely have to cough up $$ AND implement sanctions and/or oversight with their entire police force. Gottlieb will resign, but this may be the only police dept. casualty. Nifong, well, he will simply be broke, which is poetic justive, a large reason he entered into this frame was to protect his job and pension. I agree with you that the plantiffs want far more than compensatory damages 9e.g $$), I suspect they will get many of those in a settlement.


Debrah said...

None of you will believe to where Potter has now descended.

I knew this would be coming. They have no defense so the same rusty grenades have to suffice. These people seem to exist in a time capsule buried about 50 years ago.

So addicted to the old narratives as crutches.

Potter comically thrusts forth the Cross-against-Dracula race issue.

Isn't that supposed to signal to everyone that....

()))))))))))))) Oh, my! Let's forget about the real subject matter. Let's not ever leave out Sally Hemmings! She was, after all, probably hidden in some room at the house on Buchanan Blvd. Let's talk about that, people! (((((((((((((()

If this wasn't so desperate and sad, one might reply to this sickness; however, I have left only this reply:

"Claire Potter--

Allow me to explain something very that even you might comprehend the core issues with which we have been dealing with regard to this almost two year-old Lacrosse Hoax:

No one who posts inside KC's Wonderland has had any part in attempting to facilitate the railroading of three innocent Duke students.

When that happens, displaying cyber DNA might be an issue.

People shocked from observing the self-massaging Kabuki theatre-esque behavior by a large group of insular Duke professors who wanted to politicize the mental illness of the known-in-Durham-as-a-prostitute Crystal Mangum.....have every right to voice that shock.

And countless Duke alumni have put a lock on their purse strings as a result of those professors' and the Brodhead administration's behavior.

Everyone important already knows the Diva. I do realize your fascination, however.

The fact that you want to tease such a topic as "who are the critics?????!!!!!!"......

......only illuminates a lack of character in needing such a detour.

A gross inability to admit your error.

Many well-meaning posters who are fans of your posts have even appealed for such decency."

8:17 PM EST

Debrah said...

TO Mac--

For me, it's the "ugh" factor.

I mean, who needs to know that Catotti has a high tolerance for elimination process residue?

A better suggestion might be to take shorter showers, wear clothing that isn't really soiled more than once to lessen the frequency of doing laundry, don't keep the water running while you brush your teeth, etc....... many things, except what she suggested.


Anonymous said...

The attorney cited by Zimmerman at the reharmonized blog did a really bad job of reading the "Listening ad." For example:

LEITER’S CENTRAL ARGUMENT (in his own words):

“The ad itself consists largely of quotes from students, none of which prejudge guilt or innocence.”


1. “These students are shouting and whispering about WHAT HAPPENED to this young woman and to themselves.” (emphasis added).

That is a prejudgment. The words used were “WHAT HAPPENED to this young woman .…” The author could have used words such as “what was alleged to have happened.” Note that this is not a student quote; rather, it is 100% grade-A Lubiano.

2. “… I am only comfortable talking about THIS EVENT in my room with close friends. I am actually afraid to even bring it up in public. But worse, I wonder now about everything…. If SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO ME .…” (emphasis added).

What do you think “this event” means? The Duke hoax, of course. No other specific event is alluded to in the “Listening ad.” Also, consider what the quotation implies: The speaker has nothing to fear if there is just an investigation of students who are presumed innocent, but she does have something to fear “if something like this happens” to her. Something like what? A rape, of course, a prejudged, juried and executed rape.

3. “I can’t help but think about the different attention given to WHAT HAS HAPPENED from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that’s not SO UPSCALE.” (emphasis added).

“What has happened” refers to the Duke lacrosse hoax, and the author appears to be saying that he or she wants arrests now. The "different attention” is asking for the lock-up of the offenders. Finally, the use of the “so upscale” language prejudices the boys in a classist way. Of course, “what has HAPPENED” is a prejudgment that a rape occurred, and not just a prejudgment, but also a demand that arrests be affected immediately.

4. “And this is what I’m thinking right now - Duke isn’t really responding to THIS. Not really. And THIS, what HAS HAPPENED, IS A DISASTER. THIS IS A SOCIAL DISASTER.” (emphasis mine except last sentence).

Use of the word “this,” of course, refers to the Duke rape hoax. So do the words “what has happened.” Even a feeble-minded person would conclude that an investigation is not a disaster, but a rape would be. “This” rape “happened.” That is a prejudgment. Also, use of the word “happened” obviously refers to the alleged rape, not some nebulous racism on campus; otherwise, it would have been “is happening” or “is a daily occurrence.” This was a prejudgment about what “happened.”

The attorney Leiter appears to be either (1) a poor reader of English; or (2) he is practicing some kind of velvet racism. He will speculate on a grand scale about Professor Johnson (e.g., “campaign of vengeance”), but he will not give Lubiano credit for perhaps having two separate ideas in an approximate 600-word advertisement.

Listed above are four direct prejudgments lifted as quotes from the “Listening ad.” The fact that there are 15-16 other references to the Duke rape allegations in the advertisement is further proof that these were prejudgments of rape, not some supposed on-campus racism.

Then, again, there are Lubiano’s own words about the “Listening ad” in her e-mail sending it to colleagues for approval. She said it was “about” the rape allegations. But, attorney Leiter would speculate about Johnson’s motives and at the same time ignore Lubiano’s actual words. Telling, that.

These are my opinions. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

In his latest, Professor Zimmerman calls Robyn Weigman's "tarred and feathered" response a "well-modulated" letter. This is what I posted about THAT:


Professor Zimmerman:

You describe Robyn Weigman’s letter to the Chronicle as a “well-modulated” response. I have a different view of the matter.

1. Robyn’s name is Robyn, not Robin. You might want to correct your post. Also, Weigman’s letter is about 230 words in length. As you will see in the remainder of the critique, there are a lot of problems for such a tiny letter.

2. Why would a Duke professor make an accusation of “lynching” without first doing some research to determine if “tarred and feathered is the language of lynching”? Shouldn’t a professor do a minimum of research before rushing to judgment on such a non-collegial issue? She got this published just 2 days after Baldwin’s article. Although 2 days might seem a rush to judgment; certainly it is enough time to research such a tiny letter.

3. I find it very ironic that Weigman demands that everyone exercise “studied critical thought” while she is rushing to judgment on her “language of lynching.” Her exact demand is that Duke begin “cultivating a community of actors who value and perform studied critical thought.” It reminds me of Kramer’s promise to never talk again on that episode of Seinfeld. KRAMER: "O.k., starting NOW!!”

4. Along those same lines, I find it ironic that Robyn Weigman would claim “disappointment in Duke … [because] it wants to avoid the analysis of the language and history of race.” To make such a foolish error regarding the origins of “tarred and feathered” while at the same time castigating others for not analyzing the “language and history of race” is priceless.

5. Do you see Weigman’s as an attempt to chill speech using political correct methods? Seems very apparent to me. The fact that Baldwin immediately apologized for being innocent seems to support my belief. The paucity of other Duke academic responses, other than from the Economics Department, also provides fringe evidence of my point, which is: “Say anything, any of you, and we’ll call you racists!”

6. Didn’t you, Professor Zimmerman, complain about people who used the word “lynch” while commentating about the case at D-i-W? In fact, didn’t you write on this very blog: “… which doesn’t mean I have any truck with the knee-jerk geniuses who imagine the potbanging crowd as some kind of lynch mob–it’s like saying a headache is the same as a brain tumor.” I’m guessing you wrote that gem of a statement before you read Weigman’s letter. I would have felt dirty calling Weigman’s “lynching” a “well-modulated” response while calling other people names for their use of the “lynching” analogy.

7. Is the justness of a lynching dependent upon the political ideology of the lynchers and lynchees? Does skin color, type of genitalia, what that person does with his or her genitalia, amount of green paper in a person’s constructive possession or other factors determine wheter a lynching is a good lynching or a bad lynching?

These are my opinions. Tortmaster


Stuart McGeady said...

DIW readers will appreciate Ralph Luker's newest post at Cliopatria here.

By the way, is anyone else falling behind on their holiday schedule?

It's taking many minutes to check plentiful posts and comments at John in Carolina, Liestoppers, Tenured Radical and Re:harmonized.

Are there other blog or periodical sites where Professor KC Johnson, DIW, Duke and Durham are being discussed?

What hiatus? Now, if only I can remember to leave milk and cookies near the hearth for Santa Claus!

Anonymous said...

Just in case it gets swept away with the garbage, I posted this at the tenured radical blog as a comment to her "mass psycho-analysis" of D-i-W:


I appreciate the fact that you have written 2,516 words (not including the title) to not answer my question, which simply asked what you meant by this:

"Taken as a whole, in the end, DIW is about why some people get to go to places like Duke and other people don't -- it is about class rage, it is about the collapse of opportunity for middle-class people who actually had wonderful college educations in their grasp a generation ago, and have now been shut out of them. It's about how some of us made it in, and slammed the door behind us."

I get the impression that your stab at an answer had a lot to do with what you wrote earlier about the profession of History. You wrote:

“[T]here is no dominant consensus in the profession at all as to whether objectivity is either possible or desirable....”

I believe your attempted answer and your theory of History are intertwined because I cannot otherwise explain how one can issue a blanket theory about thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of comments and millions of words without any attempt at objectivity, support for the argument, statistical sampling, interviewing or basis in fact.

For example, it's a fact that any middle-class person in America who wants a good education can get one. It's a fact that some of the commentariat on D-i-W, including the blog owner, have educations equal, or superior, to that which one can obtain at Duke University. It's a fact that there are financial aid and loan packages at ALMOST EVERY American university which will ensure any qualified student can attend. Your protests notwithstanding, it's a fact that educations are frequently purchased on the installment plan in this economy.

A theory isn't a theory if it isn't supported by facts. Frankly, I don't know what you call a "theory" when the facts actually DISPROVE it.

I did, however, enjoy your mass psycho-analysis of thousands of people at once. It reminds me of the Goldfish confronted with the problem of re-setting the DVD machine. The Goldfish swam around and around in its bowl, but it did not stand a chance of manipulating that particular piece of electronics. Why? Because it's a Goldfish.

You are not a psychologist.

MOO! (my opinions only) Gregory


mac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AMac said...

Comment cross-posted from Tenured Radical's post "Sally Heming's Perplex..." (12/24/07 at 12:40pm) --

I agree with much of what pink 2 wrote at 4:29am, Christmas Eve--although she might not appreciate my reasoning. Prof. Lubiano's defense of her actions during the early stages of the Hoax/Frame adds to the public record. Some of her points appear straightforward, and may result in corrections or retractions from KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor. Other points seem, er, disingenuous: pitched to a readership that is unfamiliar with the key problems of the faculty enablers' metanarrative. But that's fine, too--such claims can be evaluated and, if appropriate, rebutted.

Another virtue of posts such as Prof. Lubiano's is that they open up focused lines of inquiry.

(1) Prof. Lubiano's account of how the student quotes in the Listening Statement were handled prompts this set of questions:

1a. [For the 2005/06 Duke Chronicle staff]: Lubiano claims that "The Chronicle, as a condition of publication, made us document every student quote. The respective students had to email the newspaper from their Duke email accounts and indicate that he or she was the author of those particular words and was quoted correctly." To my knowledge, this is the first time that this account has been given--twenty months after the Listening Statement's publication! Did Johnson or Taylor ever inquire about your vetting procedures? If so, how did you respond? Has the Chronicle ever explained its concerns about running the ad, and how they were met? (URL, please!) If not, why not? Did nobody think to ask? Did Duke's Administration request or demand silence?

1b. [For Johnson/Taylor]: Lubiano claims that the chair of AAAS responded to a query by Johnson, emailing him the correct account of how student quotes were handled (i.e. Lubiano's account). While the correspondence predated the publication of Until Proven Innocent, Johnson and Taylor ignored this information in their book. Is this correct? If so, why did UPI's authors fail to present the AAAS chair's account where it differed from their view?

1c. [For Lubiano]: You state that the Listening Statement authors and the Chronicle staff went through a protracted pre-publication process, and you indicate that the Statement was repeatedly revised in consultation with some of its signatories. In the Clarifying Statement and on many other occasions, Listening Statement signers and supporters have claimed that the Statement was not about the then-pending criminal case, and was not intended to support those who were vociferously proclaiming the guilt of Lacrosse team members. Since Statement drafts and accompanying emails would speak eloquently to the question of "intent," will you release them? If not, why not?

(2) Prof. Lubiano's account of how "Shut Up and Teach?" was presented in UPI raises this issue:

2a. [For Lubiano]: You imply that what you said at the "Shut Up and Teach?" colloquium was misquoted in UPI. But your phrasing is odd: you assert that only those who review the authorized video have the authority to quote you, and you emphasize that that tape may only be viewed by selected researchers within the Duke community. Yes or no: were you misquoted? If so, what did you actually say? Why is AAAS unwilling to release its record of this important event?

Two closing notes. First, I loaned out my copy of UPI and thus can't check the page numbers Prof. Lubiano references (112, 114, 115, 135, 145, 336, 337, and 342). At this writing, UPI's online notes contain no errata for these pages. Johnson and Taylor do provide source notes for each of the mentioned pages.

Second, since part of this discussion [at this and preceding Tenured Radical posts] has concerned anonymity, I pointed out via email to T.R. that I make no claim of Authority when penning these pseudonymous comments--my ideas stand or fall on their own merits. If pink 2 or another regular thinks my identity is important, I can be reached at amac-2007 at usa dot net.

kcjohnson9 said...

A quick reply to amac's question, 1b:

I four times e-mailed the chair of the AAAS Department, Prof. Charles Payne, to ask if the department paid for the ad; and how the student quotes were ascertained. He never replied.

After he signed the clarifying statement, I e-mailed Prof. Charles Piot, who succeeded Payne as AAAS chairman, to ask how he could speak to the intent of the ad's signatories. (Piot signed the clarifying letter but wasn't a member of the Group of 88.) He didn't answer the question, but he did add his interpretation of how the signatures were vetted. But, of course, he wasn't chair of the department in 2006, when the ad was prepared.

The obvious approach, of course: Prof. Lubiano should release the names of the alleged students, and they can testify as to what they said. It was, and remains, unclear why she did not identify the students' names in the ad.

In the Dowd lawsuit, the Dowds subpoenaed the Chronicle for this information; the Chronicle fought the subpoena; the suit was settled before the issue was decided.

After glancing over the rest of Lubiano's commentary, I'll certainly add to the footnote on p. 132 that Prof. Mark Anthony Neal originated the idea of converting the discussion into a discussion of the rape case. Since, by all accounts, Prof. Lubiano and Prof. Holloway presided over the discussion, it hardly seems inaccurate to say that they also converted the gathering's focus.

As to all of other Lubiano's points: with one exception, they all seem to be based on material (the transcript of the 3-30 faculty meeting, the video of the shut up and teach forum, the e-mails and drafts of the Group of 88's statement) that she is refusing to release. I'm afraid that's a strategy bound to raise serious questions among any fair-minded readers.

The exception is her comment that UPI described her as active on gay and lesbian issues. It's not clear to me if she's denying this--she was, as the DIW post makes clear, a participant in DRAGnet (Duke Radical Action Group), which, according to the Chronicle, featured professors “running around campus dressed from head to toe like drag queens” performing political skits; and she was closing speaker at a 2001 conference called “Black Queer Studies in the Millennium.” That would seem to me to fit the description; but, certainly, if Lubiano doesn't consider the above an accurate description, I'll post a comment in the notes. To be frank, however, it's not clear to me what she's trying to say in that section of her essay.

I should note, of course, I e-mailed Lubiano to ask about her comments at the 3-30 faculty meeting; she refused to answer, and ordered me not to e-mail her again.

kcjohnson9 said...

A correction to the item above:

I e-mailed Charles Payne three, not four, times (July 13, 2006; July 27, 2006, and Aug. 31, 2006).

mac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It seems clear that "Professor Forthcoming" is someone who reads Ralph Luker's postings at HNN: After Luker pointed out Prof. F's gaffe mistaking National Journal for National Review, Prof. F's "Truth" was adjusted the only way one would expect from this illustrious scholar: silently, with no admission that he/she had ever said anything different from what he/she said now.

Debrah said...

Potter a way to explain why she deleted posts; however, this has very little to do with posters' comments which reveal the truth about subjects under discussion on a blog:

"I wouldn't let a student
trash another student in my class either without intervening, because not to do so seems to me tacit acceptance of that behavior."

Debrah said:


That's admirable.

Then please explain your never-ending support of many who make up the 88 professors at Duke who did just that to students with abandon.

Anonymous said...

To "MOO" Gregory:
I was bumbed to learn that "MOO" stands for "my opinions only". I love the MOO tag, but thought instead it might be a reference to MOO cows, my daughter's favorite animal! So, here's to you MOO Gregory (a bovine MOO)...I enjoy your posts.

Anonymous said...

My dear Gregory @ 4:29,

You have parsed the words of the '88 with Occam's razor when the '88 only expected a butter knife. Your choice of implements may not conform to acceptable queer theory and specieist perspective, nor is it consistent with floating phalluses in Mezo-America. In fact, floating phalluses are singularly frightened by razors, even when wielded only by Occam.

Please...when you are spreading butter, use a softer blade. The '88 cannot be diced like an onion nor sliced like a ham, even though their thoughts are surely food for the masses and frankly not well prepared.

Occam's razor is not worthy of ... well, the only thing that comes to mind (about the '88) is a very cold omelet.


Hope all had a Merry Christmas!!!

Anonymous said...

To Diva Deborah,
I would be happy to visit your blog.

To StuDaddy,
Yes, I for one have had some issues getting ready for Christmas. Fortunately, my spouse contributed significantly to pulling Christmas morning together, and it seems everyone is happy.

And on the LS Blog thread regarding KC Johnson's thoughts on the new civil case...these were KC's responses to ChicagoLacrosse's questions to KC via e-mail, and KC gave Chicago permission to post them.

The Just-for-the-Record post certainly corrected any confusion about the record. I do believe the G88's role in the hoax/frame is widely perceived to be despicable. I doubt their protestations about KC Johnson or anything else can do much to change that perception, which just so happens to reflect reality.

Debrah said...

TO Observer--


So happy to hear that your Christmas holiday came off without incident.

My issue with blogs was to say that a serious one will be needed as a base if any of us wish to maintain free speech in combating the just-plain-no-other-word-will-do.....LIES, which various appendages of Duke's 88 are now trying to perpetuate.

You have always maintained a very logical and laid back approach and I admire that in those who couple that approach with consistency and candor.

However, what I have witnessed a few times from some who post inside Wonderland, and now on the Potter blog, is nothing short of nauseating.

I realize that some might be suffering from withdrawal symptoms now that a 24/7 free flowing exchange doesn't exist here anymore; however, not to take Potter to task for what she and her out-of-touch little gang spew is tantamount to fora treason in my book.

For the record, I have been very critical of some of her posts, but have posted nothing worthy of deleting. What I posted there only took her to task for what she has written.

Potter habitually lies when she makes excuses for deleting posts. She also deletes some of Gregory's for no reason at all.

Just recently I left two posts correcting "reharmonizer" aka Zimmerman about Jim Coleman. I provided the information that KC posted here about Coleman's run-in with another person on a Greensboro case--showing that it was the same type of 180-change in behavior that he exhibited in the lacrosse case.

I also provided information from Stuart Taylor that he revealed in his November appearance at Duke.

This was to answer issues brought up by another person who was posting without all the facts.

These posts were not allowed to be put through at the Potter blog.

For no reason at all except that this pathetically strange woman has a gasping need to help the 88 rewrite the story.

She even allowed another professor to show up and accuse one of his detractors of being drunk and then allowed him to assault me in one of the pettiest ways to date.......yet Potter tries to make believe that she has a reputable blog.

If others knew all that this freak does behind the scenes, they might consider her as disgusting and as dishonest as do I.

I want to thank Gregory for taking a page out of the Diva book of candor and posting as clearly and as brilliantly as he always does over there. He didn't change his personality and kiss the freak's behind as some have.

Pity that some from Wonderland have engaged in a kiss-up session with Potter just to have a new "home" for mouthing off antimacassar BS.

I always knew that there were those who could take on the word "ho" as easily as Mangum; however it was depressing to witness it during such a lively holiday season.

This topic really is a---"You are for us or you are against us."---issue.

Anyone who participates in making someone as common as Potter feel comfortable in her sleaze is not contributing to anything worthwhile and should be viewed as such.

Debrah said...

An anonymous poster left this over at Potter's pig pen.

Very well done.

The points made below also illuminate a necessity to correct the lies now being used to rewrite the story.......not acquiesce to the nauseating methods used by Potter and her ilk.

"I don't understand how all these thousands of words change Professor Johnson's point one bit. Professor Potter said that the alleged victim was assaulted at the party, and she wasn't. End of story.

All this relativistic nonsense about "well some people think I'm credible and some people think KC is credible" does not change that simple fact.

Why is this so complicated? Professor Potter made a rush to judgment about a subject she hadn't investigated closely, a judgment that aligned with her personal preconceptions about the world. That was a bad judgment, especially because it claimed certainty about a highly publicized legal proceeding.

Conversations about Truth and Objectivity and poor defendants in the same position (a topic KC himself has touched on several times) do not change that fact either. Neither does saying that the incorrect judgment had no impact on how the case came out, or that the comment was made thoughtlessly. It was still a mistake and it shouldn't be that big of a deal to admit that.

It's amazing how long some people can drag this out trying to change the subject. Some things really are that simple."

Debrah said...

This is the kind of column--in all its truth and honesty--that you will never see on a blog like the ones Potter and the band teacher Zimmerman run.

These two people illustrate so well the sheer ignorance that passes for knowledge at many universities. Both know so little about other topics of the world, and judging from some of their posts, they're not exactly experts in their chosen fields of study.

Deleting, cutting and splicing, and just plain lying, are what can be expected from them.

They are afraid to confront the hard issues...while they sit back in their dark corners peeping out to see if it's safe to come outside and obfuscate on yet another topic about which they know so little.

Zimmerman is forever telling everyone how clueless he is about a certain topic.....then proceeds to try to post about it.

Potter just remains as clueless as a tofu turkey.

Does anyone realize how all of us are inadvertently helping these people?

By even showing up and arguing with them, we are handing them internet fora cachet that KC has worked to build and to which we have all contributed.

Which is why someone needs to get a base going so that there will be no need to depend on such people for the fairness and the free speech which belongs to us all.

Anonymous said...

Listening to the continued palabber from the Gang of 88 and their supporters reminds me of the following Jonathan Swift qoute:

"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him."

Gary Packwood said...

Debrah 08:03 | 12/26/2007 said...

...Potter habitually lies when she makes excuses for deleting posts. She also deletes some of Gregory's for no reason at all.
She has been taught to 'Stay on Message' and she is attempting to do just that.

Now the question becomes ...Stay on Message for Whom?

Who is reading her stuff? I'm not. And won't.

Why not spread the word that she is in a message loop and enable those who enjoy reading a loop of nonsense ... to imbibe.

Debrah said...


Your point is an excellent one.

It would be best for all of us who have been posting here to ignore such a woman, but it's clear that some like her brand of obfuscation and that's their right.

At first, it was out of curiosity that I checked out her scribbling. People like Potter who exist on lies and fabrication do provoke responses because you want to find out if they are that dumb or just dishonest; however, this last week has shown that Potter is both.

Her last post listed some names from DIW and insinuated that some of us might have something to do with the nasty emails.

This is it for me.

Potter needs to check herself.

I contacted James Coleman by phone once and we exchanged an email once--which I published here--and that is the extent of any contact I have ever desired to have with professors at Duke on this matter.

If this kind of insinuation continues, it would be my promise to such a person as Potter that if I am libeled in any way, expect to be tied up in court until you're drawing Social Security.

No excuse for such insinuations from Potter....but there are some who used to post here who think her tactics are quite they email me privately calling her names and making fun of her.

That's not my game. What I have to say about someone I say to them directly.

AMac said...

John Stuart Mill argues "that free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. We can never be sure, he contends, that a silenced opinion does not contain some element of the truth. He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First, individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open exchange of ideas. Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma."

My two recent contributions to the comments thread of Tenured Radical's post The Salley Hemings Perplex can be found at 11:43am and at 12:20pm. When commenting at leftists' sites, I always keep a copy to post elsewhere if they are deleted.

Anonymous said...

" is about time the proper apologies are said..."

We're listening! (Still can't hear anything though.)

mac said...


Yeah, Stuart Mill's quote is a gem: tell a part of the truth. Sure. That's the best way to squeeze in a lie. Or to sqeeze out a lie. (I hear if you use a bic lighter, even lies can be ignited.)

Potter has had so many chances to retract what she said, but she hasn't taken even one of the many opportunities people have given her to tell the truth about her own statements. It's beyond clear that she's never going to abandon her lying-denying.

I agree with GP: she's a waste of time. I haven't attempted to post there, and I never, ever, ever would send her an email. If you want to engage in micturition contests, then keep posting on her website. But don't complain if you end up with stains.

Debrah said...

TO Mac--

As an FYI.....there hasn't been anything of value to report from the H-S.

It's just the proverbial syrupy holiday fare. How everyone in Durham is so special and helpful this holiday season.


Of course, there are always the letters and the columns about the "chil-ren" or the "chid-ren"...depending upon who is opining. They are the furture, you know!

When glancing at the H-S website, you'd think that a place like Durham was just the best place in the world. They want everyone to know that when historians look back at Durham 20 years from now, the year 2007 will mark a "turning point" for downtown.


And when everyone looks back at both 2006 and 2007, they will see that those years were just as sleazy in Durham as all the rest......except they got caught.

I suppose there will be very little news until the civil suits get going.

Anonymous said...

[re: an apology from the Gang of 88:] "We're listening! (Still can't hear anything though.)"

...and I "turned up the volume", but I still don't hear anything by way of an apology.

Anonymous said...

Alright; I give up. I was wrong; the Gang of 88 was right: there is racism at Duke [only problem is they are the ones who are racist].

One Spook said...

After all of the obsfucation and turgid prose at the TR Blog, I had enough. Amac and Steven Horwitz have far more patience than I with these "true believers."

I believe Debrah had Potter pegged correctly, right from the start.

Here is my "nice" departing comment at TR ... I would not be surprised if TR deletes it.

onespook said:

michael in nh @ 3:28 PM writes:

"What frequently annoys me is when one posts something factually incorrect or puts forth a position that isn't supported by the facts, and then a request is made to look at various documents. And the person begs off as it's not interesting, too much work, or they have a different worldview. Perhaps this isn't the best place for an intellectual discussion.

I have a lot of work to do and I think that this is a good enough place to finish here."


Like other frequent DIW readers who have commented here, I have tried to be fair and courteous to the author and participants on this blog. For that, I have been criticized by at least one DIW regular reader.

I originally came here because I wanted to read Professor Potter's reply to KC Johnson's posting that she has never retracted her statement that "the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted", despite the investigation performed by the office of the Attorney General of North Carolina determining that there was "no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night".

Apart from a statement from Professor Potter that her writing was in the "passive voice," I've read nothing from her or others here that address any cogent explanation or reason for the demonstrably false assertions in her statement.

I believe that, at a minimum, for a scholar to make such indefensible statements and not retract them is shameful and frankly, unprofessional.

Now, participants here are asked by Potter to not quote arguments advanced in the DIW blog, or to not bring up certain aspects of Professor Curtis' behavior.

Framing the "discussion" here in that manner renders the discourse absolutely and totally useless, and I'll not be a party to it any further.

For those of you who remain, please read amac and steven horwitz's comments here and address their questions. The comments of those two PhD scholars are valid and worthy of your regard.

I'll take my leave, thanks.

One Spook

5:47 PM EST

[Sigh] sometimes one hopes for reasoned, ethical behavior from this very ideologically biased "race, class gender crowd," only to have those hopes dashed again.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

These are the folks that want to move on from anything that they screw up on and that use the same contorted logic that Nifong used.

I presented evidence on Curtis from DIW and LS and Potter provided a number of contortions on the evidence. Reminded me of Nifong in the choke hold.

Then there's the "slammed the door shut" comment. It's clear that Potter has a big ego and meant that as a put-down to those here. So when we did a little speculating, she went to great efforts to indicate that we were wrong in our speculation as to what she meant. I think that a reasonable person would just indicate what they actually meant instead of telling others that their speculation was wrong. Unfortunately for her, she clearly got caught in something that embarrassed her and used deflection to try to get herself out of a self-made trap.

mac said...

Off-topic - (and I know KC hates FOX News) but on Kelly's Court, the three attorneys on the panel (plus Bill Hemmer) all unanimously declared the lawsuit against Durham and Nifong et al "The Best Lawsuit of 2007."
(they weren't referring to the latest lawsuit, but the original 30 mil lawsuit; no comment on the new round.) It was unanimous.

The City of Duhh is cooked.

King Crimson's "Court of the Crimson King" is a fitting theme song to the Nifong debacle.

"The dance of the puppets
The rusted chains of prison moons
Are shattered by the sun.
I walk a road, horizons change
The tournament's begun.
The purple piper plays his tune,
The choir softly sing;
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
For the court of the crimson king

The keeper of the city keys
Put shutters on the dreams
I wait outside the pilgrims door
With insufficient schemes.
The black queen chants
The funeral march,
The cracked brass bells will ring;
To summon back the fire witch
To the court of the crimson king

The gardener plants an evergreen
Whilst trampling on a flower.
I chase the wind of a prism ship
To taste the sweet and sour.
The pattern juggler lifts his hand;
The orchestra begin.
As slowly turns the grinding wheel
In the court of the crimson king.

On soft gray mornings widows cry
The wise men share a joke;
I run to grasp divining signs
To satisfy the hoax.
The yellow jester does not play
But gently pulls the strings
And smiles as the puppets dance
In the court of the crimson king."

Those of us who've followed the case will see the significance (eg "pattern juggler" Brian Meehan)

Happy New Year!

Anonymous said...

Posted at the TR blog:


"I also agree with you about not working from the assumption that the LS requires apology ...." (TR @ 9:12 EST).

To do so, don't you have to believe that Professor Lubiano had not even a minimal understanding of the English language? Defenses of the “Listening ad” seem to have reached the point at which it is assumed that Professor Lubiano and the other 87 Duke University elite were mere intellectual bumpkins somehow unable to understand the definitions of words like “this” or “happened” or "terror” or "is."

This is a direct quote from Professor Lubiano (not one of the students) taken directly from the "Listening ad":

“These students are shouting and whispering about WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS YOUNG WOMAN and to themselves.” (emphasis added).

I prefer to believe that Professor Lubiano was intelligent enough to understand that simple sentence. There were 3 other sentences quite like it, but attributed to students, in the "Listening ad."

Nickname @ 11:26 AM EST suggests that we "as an exercise, take the students' quotes seriously ...." Let's. Here is one of the actual student quotes from the "Listening ad":

“And this is what I’m thinking right now - Duke isn’t really responding to THIS. Not really. And THIS, what HAS HAPPENED, IS A DISASTER. THIS IS A SOCIAL DISASTER.” (emphasis mine except last sentence).

I believe that Professor Lubiano understood that the word "happened" refers to something that occurred in the past - not an ongoing racism on campus, and not something that did not happen in the past. I also believe that the Professor had the smarts to fit two messages into one 600-word advertisement. Do you?

My opinions only. MOO! Gregory


Anonymous said...

I am traveling and completely caught up in shepherding college applications for twin Observer, Jrs. I have missed Claire Potter's blog entirely, but I appreciate those here who are keeping the rest of us up to date. I hope to catch up after the new year...and the college application deadlines.

I love the excerpts from TR indicating that the author of that blog cannot be bothered with reading certain documents or addressing certain arguments. That does seem to be the crux of the G88 issue all right. That plus their seeming inability to appreciate that truth and individual justice are critical building blocks in the DNA of social justice and WORTHY OF THEIR UNBIASED, CAREFUL ATTENTION.

On the issue of hateful and hate-filled e-mails...they only serve to poison discussion and cloud reasoning...and they are entirely irrelevant to the issues. That they exist at all is most regrettable, but they seem to be a fact of modern life, so what else is there to do but get over it or pursue legal remedies. I do not know who TR is suggesting sent them, but it is not the mark of a reasonable person to make unsubstantiated accusations, and this continued reference to them is a tiresome red herring.

kcjohnson9 said...

A reader yesterday raised a question about the comment moderation policy. I am happy to answer any questions about the moderation policy, or about the blog in general, via e-mail.

Anonymous said...

Re: Examining Defendant Levity’s program “Emphasis”

A scholarly study of SANE programs cites that some SANE programs are geared toward prosecution from the START.
Remaining radical? Organizational predictors of rape crisis centers' ...

Title: Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Program Goals and Patient Care Practices

Findings: Three types of [emphasis] in SANE programs were identified: (a) [prosecution] of cases as a primary goal; …….

Gary Packwood said...

traveler 12/30/2007:: 8:24 AM said...

..Re: Examining Defendant Levity’s program “Emphasis”
...A scholarly study of SANE programs cites that some SANE programs are geared toward prosecution from the START.
...Remaining radical? Organizational predictors of rape crisis centers' ...
...Title: Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Program Goals and Patient Care Practices
Findings: Three types of [emphasis] in SANE programs were identified: (a) [prosecution] of cases as a primary goal; …….
Interesting and helpful article. Thanks.

If prosecution is not the driving motivation for a SANE program, I suspect the program should not be housed in a primary care hospital.

Changing community thought patterns and perceptions while providing emotional support for victims is not the usual mission of an emergency department in a primary care hospital.

But, I'll bet that nurses with SANE certification would like for it to be.

Sneaky way to expand the scope of their nursing jobs and job security with the hospital having to pay the freight.

Another Trojan Horse with the Department of Justice footing the bill for the first five years or so and the hospital having to pick up the tab once the soldiers leave the horse.

Federal (DOJ) grants funds are available to fund the continuation of the SANE program but the administrators would need to compete with local law enforcement to get at those dollars.

That competition should be fun to watch.

mac said...

Heather Nauert of FOX's "The Big Story" picked Mike Nifong as one of 2007's "Biggest Losers."

Sad to say, but I doubt you'd see that on ABC, CBS or CNN. (And Terry Moran's take on the case makes him one of the biggest losers, too.)

I'd add to the list the wholce cast of enablers, hoaxers and (of course) the Kommunist Klan Konspirators (KKK) of the 88.

Anonymous said...

happy new year DR KC...

be advised that BLOOMBERG mentioned that the "duke lacrosse case" was one of the top stories of 2007

Anonymous said...

From Zimmerman:

Michael in NH | December 29, 2007 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

Personally effected?

~ ~ ~

As opposed to vicariously effected. I remembered a better Chronicle article about the experience of the lacrosse team, though: “Living a Nightmare.”


I guess he didn't get the gist of my short comment.

Anonymous said...

Re: SANE & Vagina Monologues

UPI page 33-(Levicy)...” strong feminist who had played a part in a Vagina Monologues production.” (It would seem the V.M. production is the ‘Go To’ fund raiser)
It’s V Day! SANE Fund Raiser

Facing the Vagina
Universities Put On Play About Women’s Concerns
Allison Conyers
“The vaginas are coming. As a matter of fact, they’re taking over.”
IAFN Newsletter vol 1 issue
...her SANE-A. In addition to her duties as coordinator, Karen has taught a ... She appeared in The Vagina Monologues in. Westchester County on March, 2003. ... - Similar pages -
April 7th, Training workshop for St. Clare's SANE nurses. ... Women's Resource Centre (MUN) puts on a production of Eve Ensler's 'The Vagina Monologues' . ...
WSU Health and Wellness - News and Events
10/30/2006, Nurses Complete SANE Training. 10/30/2006, Audition for the Vagina Monologues. 10/17/2006, Meningitis On Campus ...
------------ - Lisa Gay Hamilton acts to end violence against women
Hamilton believes that the documentary and the Vagina Monologues are important ... a registered nurse as well as a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE). ...
Breaking The Silence increase prosecutions (see article on SANE nurses) and to move people ... Vagina Monologues Event Raises. $2000 and Awareness for LaCASA ...

Debrah said...

Greetings for the New Year of 2008!

It's much later than any of us think. LIS!

The Diva is glad to be back in town even though there's tons of work and post-holiday mischief galore.

However, the new year has already smiled on the Diva:

I was lucky enough to have been leaving Georgetown and the DC area before a group of historians--of the PC-Duke-88-loving variety--descended on the place.......(from my reading of comments elsewhere).

Thank G/d earlier festivities were not contaminated by these urchins.

I see that it's been quiet here. Why don't you guys already have something going?

Do you expect just to hover and slip in a flaccid comment or two on the already existing blogs?

I thought so.

Note: May KC ram any future comment I might ever have about a possible "Wonderland video" right back into my IMAC keyboard.

I've been expecting that one for half a year. I should have just hired someone to do it.....and it would have been done months ago.

Oh, well.........that's one regret from 2007. Otherwise, the year was magnifico!

Stu Daddy--I'll address your comment inside The Diva World...although you might not like what I have to say.

What a few of you did on another blog was really quite shocking.....not so easily forgotten with a jocularity.

Intent is the essence of life.

Debrah said...

Oh, wow!

I might begin to change my mind a bit about Obama.

Anyone who is able to finally get rid of the Clinton residue from the '90s is truly doing "G/d's work".

Now, if he can just get rid of John-Boy!

Debrah said...

Obama is very, very, very impressive.

Word is that many Republicans in Iowa have thrown support behind him.

He's got the "it" factor of authenticity and people will always respond to that. He's a great speaker and doesn't get into the usual "preacher mode" that so many pols do.

However, I feel the same way about his wife as I do about Giuliani's--they give me the creeps.

Huckabee doesn't have a prayer after Iowa....or at least I hope he doesn't.

It'll be Obama against McCain or Rudy.

AMac said...

There has been nearly continual debate about the good and bad of KC's comments policies since DiW began to draw a lot of traffic in mid-2006.

Some commenters liked the free-for-all format that prevailed at first. Others appreciated KC's imposition of moderation. Still others believed that the overall 'tone' of the moderated comments sections remained problematic, given KC's light hand. I am in that third faction.

Clay Shirky wrote an interesting if lengthy essay on the challenges of 'social software' development and use. He posted A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy at his site in July 2003. Many of his observations are applicable to the commenting 'community' that developed at this site.

(Hat tip to Joe Katzman.)

Debrah said...

For those bored while waiting for the civil suits to begin in Durham, there have been several interesting letters-to-the-editor in the H-S.

I also noticed that in the N&O Barry Saunders has been skewered by readers of a few of his recent columns.

IMO, a positive element from the Lacrosse Hoax is that many are voicing their opinions on various hot-button issues more frequently and loudly.

Regarding the first letter from the H-S below, readers should know that Bert Collins is the former president of North Carolina Mutual--(the largest black-owned insurance company in the country which has always had its offices in Durham)--who seems to be a highly competent man...... it's bizarre that such a person would publicly advocate "dumbing down" schools just so graduation rates will be higher.

It's also worth noting that Collins is an affluent older man who actually looks white. If you were passing him on the street, you would assume you had passed a white man.

I know a family who lives in his former neighborhood---before he moved to a ritzier one where Wall Street's Maceo Sloan lives---and their kids always thought that Collins was just a white guy living in their subdivision.

This is another issue within the black community. There is often friction between those with differing hues of "blackness".

When you take a strong objective look, it's almost as if skin color is a kind of fetish inside the black community. Perhaps that's why it is a never-ending excuse for everything.

People like Collins are doing harm when they do not demand the same standards that are expected from all students across the board. It's almost as if he thinks he's better than other black people and that expectations should be lowered for them.

A friend of mine--a black attorney--told me once that Collins allows people to think he's white and never corrects them unless the situation demands it.

He said he handled a traffic ticket for Collins once and he (Collins) was written up as white. The attorney was a bit disgusted by this; however, as I mentioned to him, if you are stopped by a trooper on the interstate for speeding, it's best to say as little as possible.

Some who don't live in the Triangle should know that there is a hierarchy in Durham inside the black community that is as prejudiced as anything you will ever find among outside groups of people.

Some blacks who move to the Triangle from other areas of the country try to avoid Durham as well.

The second letter below is about the Lewis Cheek episode. The H-S columnist John McCann, who writes so many homophobic diatribes, has now written some very nasty things about Cheek's alcoholism.

It's an ongoing gritty soap opera in Durham!


The real problem

I do not understand how a civic leader such as Bert Collins [Forum, Dec. 28] can advocate introducing what appears to be coat-and-tie trade school courses at historically black colleges just to increase black graduation rates.

Collins will not get much white support because whites still do not understand the concept of historically black colleges when whites are denied historically white colleges.

Collins must face the truth that the black family concept is in shambles. Seventy percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. I suggest that is the real reason for lower graduation rates of black students.

R. L. Taylor
January 4, 2008

McCann is misguided

I would like to take just a moment to respond John McCann's column of Dec. 30 on alcoholism as he related it to County Commissioner Lewis Cheek.

Unless McCann wants his daughter to grow up and be as self-centered, judgmental and uneducated as her father is, maybe he should be arranging for her to play dolls with someone other than himself.

Martha E. Giles
January 4, 2008

mac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mac said...


I'm sorry, but that link was perhaps one of the most insipid pieces of work I've ever tried wading through. Worse, the comments about "defeating therapy" made me wonder if the author might be Nurse Ratched.

As far as the "light touch" you alluded to with regard to moderation: I think KC understands the concept of democracy. He also understands the various roles that posters play.

As a former English Major - (a unpublished writer who should have studied History, instead)- I noticed that there were two types of students in Creative Writing classes (well, more than two, but for the sake of this argument...)

They were the REAL English Majors who had little original thought, no talent for expression, no talent for any of the expressive tools of writing (such as metaphor, hyperbole etc) and were prone to regurgitate all the work that others had once penned. I guess they took it to heart when they read T.S. Eliot's comment about "good poets borrow, great poets steal." Their work was as interesting as weak tea, made from third use of the bag.

Then there were those English Majors who were really talented writers: they were usually the English Majors who were hanging on, ADHD-types. I read their work, and what they wrote was interesting and worth reading/listening to. They knew how to take risks. I was one of them.

As each student read their work, it became obvious: the real writers in the group would write works that had a chance of being studied - years later - by the pretenders. And there was an undercurrent of resentment from the academic-types who bitterly resented those who had the talent that they had long admired. They didn't know that they were sitting in the same room with people who they might one day admire! They somehow imagined writers were not real people, but were characters printed on some page somewhere.

I had already noticed by that time that many of the contemporary authors we were studying were college dropouts, and understood that my original observation wasn't so original, after all: it was shared by good observers.

Yes, AMAC, there were two classes of animal in the group. And some of us who post here won't be driven into a Nurse Ratched therapy session so that we can write like a real, honest-to-God, boring, lifeless, experience-less English Major whose only life experience comes from in-between the pages of a book.

When I look at certain members of the 88, particularly the English and Literature faculty, I am reminded of the talentless who sit in judgement of the talented.

What do you teach, AMAC?

mac said...


One of the things that is most agreed upon with regard to the Klan of 88 is their willingness to project all of their hated boogeymonsters and evil ideations into one vessel: the white male athlete. All of it, summarily dumped upon the heads of three innocent young men.

And you see how they cannot let that go: they still are the Klan of 88. Have we seen any apologies?

Elections are like that: we project our own hopes, fears and desires onto candidates who haven't said what we hope they might say, and may not deliver what we hope they'll deliver. They shine most when they don't provide details, because that allows for the most projection by the largest numbers of people.

Thompson and Obama are two such vessels, which is why Obama has such an attraction for the young voters. People literally pour their hopes into these guys. Unfortunately, it's the same will all the candidates, more-or-less:

Schmuckabee and John Boy Edwards - while playing the same tune - are both versions of Jimmy Carter: empty vessels with cracks and holes.

I wonder who the 88 would vote for?
Edwards is my guess.

Debrah said...

A commenter at JinC noted that the Washington Times listed AG Roy Cooper in their 2007 Nobles and Knaves article.

Debrah said...

I knew this would happen.

I am now being harassed inside The Diva World by one of the DIW commenters who performed so disappointingly on another blog recently.

Unable to handle the criticism and unable to just let go, he has taken on another moniker to post very personal attacks--(all designed to cut the Diva to the bone, of course).


What this episode has shown me is that many posters (on any blog in general) just show up to bloviate and do not have convictions or a value system that would make a serious topic like the Lacrosse Hoax resonate to the point of at least harboring a trace of emotional and psychological loyalty.

That was the sense of indecency that I felt when I saw people from DIW just mingling and showing mind-numbing respect for another blogger who has done nothing but promote falsehoods about KC and this entire blog.

I was stunned.

Not only because of the sucking-up on both ends--I realize that this is how some people live--but not understanding that this has not been more than some frivolous issue out of Vogue magazine.

If a few of you cannot understand my very logical reaction, it will do no good taking on a different moniker and sneaking around--as is your method--trying to "get revenge".

And for what?

Telling you the truth out in the open?

Sorry, but stalking and hovering and assuming different identities to attack someone is rather cowardly.

I'm not the one with the problem.

AMac said...

> What do you teach, AMAC?


I'm not a teacher or an academic. My career thus far has been in the hard sciences and the business world. That said, "teaching" is a part of life for most of us, or should be.

So, no arguments from authority or claims of expertise from this corner, as far as comments offered at DiW and elsewhere concerning the Hoax/Frame. For me, one of the lessons has been that no privileged perspective or special insight was required to understand the fundamentals of the Hoax/Frame, from Late Summer 2006 on. Yet the band kept playing, in many cases abetted by Academic Professionals: the very people who should have been among the first to catch on to the farce and expose it.

mac said...


Very solid point: the Academic Professionals SHOULD have been among the first.

It's interesting when you look at academics in the study of history who are willing to put themselves on the wrong side: that is, as you said, those who "aided and abetted" the hoax and "who should have been among the first to catch on to the farce and expose it." Potter is one of those, of course.

KC, on the other hand, has been both an historian and a participant in this historical event - on the right side of the issue. He has shown himself to be no one's slave, and that's why he's allowed comments from a truly diverse set of posters. Free minds don't enslave others.

For perspective: the 88 and the other academic enablers are a great deal like Stalin's historians, or Hitler's, or Mao's; as artists, they're like the "official" artists of the USSR or Nazi Germany or Communist China: court clowns and artisans who serve, lapdog style, for a meal or for the ingratiation of the Great State.

And see what Chairman Mao did, once they showed themselves.

Just as it's said in Jurrasic Park: "Life finds a way," so does creativity. I've really enjoyed the ride, the comments, the wild expressions of creativity, from MOO Gregory to Debrah to One Spook to the deep-inside information from Duke Prof. I wouldn't change much about what was allowed - except for a few silly, long-winded, poorly constructed and boring ones that I (mostly) edited out, that I authored.

Even the free-for-alls when comment moderation wasn't in place contained nuggets. You just had to wear a HAZMAT suit to get to them!

Cheers in the New Year!
To you, Debrah, AMAC and all!
Happy New Year, KC-the-Conqueror!
And to KC the Historian: Happy Old-Year!

Debrah said...

TO Mac (8:59 AM)--

David Brooks of the NY Times has an interesting column on this subject.

He says Edwards' political career is probably over.

One can hope.

And, btw......the Gang of 88 would most likely be for Dennis Kucinich.....LIS!

A graveyard with lights.


Debrah said...


City's legal team in lacrosse suit has history of success

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
Jan 6, 2008

DURHAM -- As Durham arms itself against a potentially multimillion-dollar lawsuit arising out of the Duke lacrosse scandal, it is leaning heavily on a private law firm with extensive experience in rescuing city bureaucrats from judicial quagmires.

The firm is named Faison & Gillespie.

Among other things, it has won cases for the city involving a traffic fatality in a high-speed police chase, a deadly train collision and the improper destruction of evidence by a police officer -- an act that allowed a suspected rapist to go free.

Faison & Gillespie also fended off at least one alleged civil rights violation, a sexual harassment case and a lawsuit contending municipal officials unconstitutionally limited the display of outdoor advertising in 1984.

According to numerous legal observers, such experience will be critical in representing Durham against federal allegations that it conspired with the Police Department, defrocked District Attorney Mike Nifong and a private DNA laboratory to prosecute three Duke University lacrosse players on trumped-up sex-assault charges.

Sources have told The Herald-Sun that the players and their families sought a $30 million settlement. When the money wasn't forthcoming, a lawsuit was launched in U.S. Middle District Court in Greensboro.

Meanwhile, the three Duke athletes were declared innocent in April by N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, who rebuked Nifong for dragging them into court in the first place.

Nifong subsequently lost his law license, resigned as district attorney and spent a night in jail for misconduct.

Partner Reginald Gillespie, a 1983 honors graduate of law school at UNC Chapel Hill, had no comment about his firm's work on the federal lacrosse suit. He said he would let his record speak for itself.

It is a long one.

Case in point: Barbara Norris sued the city after her husband, Jasper Lee Norris, was struck and killed in 1993 by a drunken motorist being pursued by police.

In arguing successfully that Norris' suit should be thrown out, Gillespie contended that the two pursuing officers were protected against such litigation by "qualified immunity" and "governmental immunity."

Beyond that, Gillespie said the officers had good reasons for chasing Joseph Zambito: They recognized him, knew he had been arrested for drunken driving before and believed his license was suspended.

In addition, the pursuit -- which ended at University Drive and Hope Valley Road -- was conducted in the early-morning hours when few cars and pedestrians were out and about, Gillespie said.

He also said the roads in question were well lighted, that they were dry and free of major defects and that the two pursuing officers kept their cars under control at all times.

A local judge responded by dismissing the lawsuit. The state Court of Appeals affirmed that the officers were not grossly negligent.

Zambito was sentenced in August 1994 to 12 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter.

Another case in point: After being brutally raped and hospitalized in 1998, a woman sued the city on grounds that former Police Officer Bruce Preiss negligently or intentionally destroyed evidence needed to convict the assailant.

She contended Preiss intentionally caused her to suffer severe emotional distress.

As it turned out, a rape charge against the suspected attacker had to be dismissed.

But with the help of Gillespie and other lawyers, the city came out on the winning side.

"We are dismayed by Preiss' callous disregard for protocol and his duties as a police technician," appellate judges wrote in July 2003.

They added, however, that the alleged rape victim had failed to establish a sufficient civil case against the former officer.

Gillespie also helped save the city from a lawsuit involving the June 1998 death of Johnnie Alan Wilkerson, who was killed when an Amtrak train slammed into his truck at Plum Street.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. controlled the tracks and was sued along with the city.

Municipal and railway officials knew the Plum Street site was "one of the most dangerous railroad crossings in the state," yet they failed to make it safer until it was too late for Wilkerson, the suit alleged.

Once again, the city prevailed with assistance from Gillespie.

The state Court of Appeals said visual obstructions near the crash scene were not on city property, and the city had no duty to keep the area clear.

mac said...

Debrah 2:24 am/ 2:42 am,

Thanks for the link to the Brooks column. I would say he's got it right - almost.

Scmuckabee expelled a nasty, sulphuric joke/comment/threat over the bodies of three pheasants - (it's on U-tube) - where he points out that the three dead pheasants next to his feet didn't vote for him at the caucus, and this is what happens when you don't vote for him. I instantly imagined him as the candidate in the Dead Zone, played by Martin Sheen, the President who unleashed a nuclear nightmare because it was his "destiny" to do so.

I'm not against hunting, but the little American Indian blood in my veins tells me that it is unwise to trust a man who will abuse or joke about the carcasses of the animal(s) he has killed. It was disgusting, and it was more like we were seeing Mike Vick running for President.

I'm sure the leftist crazies hope that Schmuckabee is nominated.

Regarding the Sitty of Duhh: based upon the almost-gloating HS=SH article, I guess I was too quick to remove the comment that Duhh is a present-day incarnation of the land in the movie "Idiocracy." I now officially un-retract that comment - (pending, of course, moderation.)

Duhh is still huffin' jenkem, it seems.

Anonymous said...

Exposing radical professors:
H-K Trask in her own words.
Haunani-Kay Trask (Professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and author of the following poem)

Racist White Woman
I could kick
Your face, puncture
Both eyes.
You deserve this kind
Of violence.
No more vicious
Tongues, obscene
Just a knife
Slitting your tight
Little heart.
For all my people
Under your feet
For all those years
Lived smug and wealthy
Off our land
Parasite arrogant
A fist
In your painted
Mouth, thick
With money
And piety

Gary Packwood said...

mac 01/05/2008 8:59 AM said...

...One of the things that is most agreed upon with regard to the Klan of 88 is their willingness to project all of their hated boogeymonsters and evil ideations into one vessel: the white male athlete. All of it, summarily dumped upon the heads of three innocent young men.
...And you see how they cannot let that go: they still are the Klan of 88. Have we seen any apologies?
I think about that also and wonder if many of them might have been former psychotherapy patients who received hypnosis as part of their therapy...probably from the same therapist.

"Hated boogeymonsters and evil ideations into one vessel" over and over and over and over ...seems to me as something a normal brain would never do.

Looney Marxists professors would be excellent candidates for hypnosis, I would think.

Debrah said...

As with the Lacrosse Hoax, George Will is at his best here.

Anonymous said...

So many unanswered questions remain for discovery!

Are settlement talks or negotiations or feelers going on?

One question still nags at me, and that is: "Why did the Dowds settle?"

That is:

- their suit seemed to be one that Duke could never hope to win in court,

- discovery would almost surely get Duke into even worse situations,

- Dowd had graduated, and

- no public apology or action against the teacher took place.

The only thing I have been able to imagine was that Duke offered a private package of more $ than the suit, a private apology, and some assurance that the teacher would not return (she did in fact leave).

Any ideas or hints?


Anonymous said...

Advice for SANE nurse Tara Levicy

Testifying Tips
Do tell the truth.

Taking the Stand

A deposition allows the attorneys more freedom in their questioning than they have before a judge, and such proceedings can be emotionally exhausting.

Often, nurses report feeling like they are on trial. It's common to feel angry or defensive, but it's important to maintain composure and answer questions truthfully.

Many nurses have walked away feeling incompetent, discredited and personally attacked, but remember these verbal "assaults" are intended only to discover as much information as possible.

Most importantly, remain objective. Although you may be subpoenaed by one or both sides, you are not committed to "helping" either one.

[You are committed to truth] and justice. Hold fast to your values. [You may enter into the case with strong opinions,] but remind yourself you do not know all the facts of the case.

Debrah said...

KC will be doing a Q&A at DSEDuke shortly.

Debrah said...

These letters from the H-S will shed more light on why it was easy for Nifong to get away with so much for so long.

The whole place is nuts.

Can you imagine Lewis Cheek as DA?

IMO, it is highly irregular to slam someone with an addiction problem if they are working to alter the behavior; however, Cheek seems to have developed a fetish for airing his private life and making a spectacle of his "pain".

It's unseemly for columnists to write ad hominem diatribes about him.......and it is equally unseemly for Cheek to send op-eds to newspapers about this topic.

It reminds me of the time he held a national news conference.....talking in his long-winded and whiny drawl.....telling the world why he would not accept the job of DA.

It was as if every hick in Durham wanted to get on stage during the Lacrosse Hoax and make everything about them.

And what good did Cheek do? From the start I thought even giving him a forum was a fool's game.

Although some of his critics like Victoria Peterson have their own sicknesses, Lewis Cheek's "battles" have as much to do with the fact that he is a self-indulgent idiot as with any physical addiction.

The second letter from Robert Paul provides a look at a real molded Leftist kook.

This urchin attacked me viciously with foaming hatred back in the Spring of 2006 for a few letters and a column I wrote lambasting Nifong and others in Durham.

Is it any wonder that this nut is on a totally different subject now?

He has never been heard from again about the Lacrosse Hoax, however.


Cheek still in denial

Not content to let his critics' words go unanswered, Lewis Cheek now pours 100 proof fuel on himself and hands out matches. In the Jan. 5 Herald-Sun, Cheek lashes out at columnist John McCann for suggesting that he might have any control whatsoever over his own alcoholism. Readers are treated to a lecture on the disease theory of drunkenness.

Cheek's comparison between alcoholism and diabetes is poorly chosen. Diabetics shouldn't eat sweets. It was McCann's suggestion that Cheek step away from the bottle that provoked his ire.

More importantly, however, it is his inability to admit what the public knows from experience that so galls Durhamites about Cheek. We have smelled alcohol on him, seen the rheumy eyes, and been subjected to his tirades from his commissioners' seat. Yet he denies what is common knowledge. Cheek is a drunk and a bully, disease or no disease. Selective apologies are self-serving. Lashing out is a symptom. Accusing your accuser is propaganda.

January 8, 2006

Awaiting apology

I will await an apology from The Herald-Sun management for not acting sooner to curb the puerile writing style of columnist John McCann. McCann has the uncanny ability to render any subject into its most simplistic, inane and sophomoric elements.

I will also await McCann's apology for his un-Christian, politically partisan, childish besmirching of Democratic presidential candidates in general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular. McCann's level of humor is consistent with his level of reasoning.

I ask for these apologies not just as a Herald-Sun subscriber, but as a citizen who believes the press has a special function to educate the public.

January 8, 2008

Debrah said...

"Members of such departments spearheaded the campus lynch mob atmosphere during the Duke University "rape" case as they have poisoned other campuses in other ways, all across the country.

1968 indeed left a legacy."

Thomas Sowell

Anonymous said...

All rightee then.

I can't seem to stop checking in here 4 or 5 times a day to see if KC has stopped by to give us any new insights.

I can't seem to accept the fact that it's over.

I am forming DIW-Anonymous.
If anybody's interested in joining this support group- I could use all the help I can get.

The ongoing civil litigation saga is interesting but not urgently compelling. What I would really like to know is- "where are they now?" starting with Precious and Mikey but also including many other players.

Oh, well.

Thanks again KC.

RL alum medicine '75

Debrah said...


Assistant DA gets harassing messages

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
Jan 10, 2008

DURHAM -- Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline says callers have targeted her with racist hate messages after she was identified -- incorrectly, she maintains -- with a key document in the since-debunked Duke lacrosse rape case.

"It's really nasty people," Cline said of the anonymous phone callers.

The content, she added, is "racist stuff." She quoted one caller as saying "How's your black a-- going to run for DA?" because of a document that local defense lawyers maintained was unconstitutional.

"It's really distressing me," Cline said of the hate calls, which she said are jamming her voice mail. "I'm just stressed out."

At the heart of the matter is material taken from the notes of lacrosse case lead detective Ben Himan, and notes and a deposition from Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

They referred to Cline's role in the creation of a non-testimonial order, or NTO, that allowed police to take photographs of and collect DNA evidence from 46 of the 47 members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Cline denied that she had any role in writing the order.

"The record will indicate that David Saacks did it," she said. Saacks is the interim district attorney but was an assistant DA at that time. "I didn't prepare any paperwork on that case. Nothing at all. I've never even seen or laid hands on a non-testimonial order."

She said, "I remember Gottlieb asked me about a non-testimonial order, and I told him I was not available."

But when asked by The Herald-Sun whether she'd asked police to draft the non-testimonial order, Cline responded, "I don't recall."

Himan's notes and Gottlieb's deposition indicate that police consulted Cline on March 22, 2006, after they learned players, on the advice of attorneys, wouldn't show up that day for a scheduled meeting with investigators.

As soon as that was clear, Himan contacted Cline, who handled most sexual-assault cases for the district attorney's office.

Himan -- who turned over his notes to defense lawyers in May of 2006 -- reported that the conversation took place at about 4:15 p.m. He said Cline urged police to secure the order.

"I went to Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline and spoke to her about our case," Himan said, summarizing what happened. "She stated that we should do the non-testimonial on the players including upper-torso pictures, current mug shots and cheek swabbings."

Gottlieb's notes -- turned over to the defense in July of 2006 -- backed Himan's account.

"I spoke to [Police Attorney] Toni Smith and notified her that Investigator Himan spoke with ADA Tracey Cline. Ms. Cline asked them to draw up the NTO so the DA's office could present it to a judge in the morning. [Smith] stated follow the directions of the DA's office since they are the ones conducting the possible future prosecution."

The sergeant's deposition -- given to N.C. State Bar investigators as they assembled evidence for then-District Attorney Mike Nifong's eventual disbarment -- echoed his notes.

"I had actually spoke with Ms. Smith and Investigator Himan spoke with the District Attorney's office, Ms. Cline, and they decided to -- the district attorney's office thought it was a good idea [--] to go ahead and do a non-testimonial, and I assisted Investigator Himan in preparing it," Gottlieb told bar investigators.

Himan and Gottlieb worked on the order overnight and had it ready for a judge's signature the morning of March 23, 2006. Cline, however, wasn't available to help the detectives get it signed. Himan said he turned to Saacks, who presented the draft order to Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens.

Asked for comment, Saacks backed up the accounts offered by Himan and Gottlieb, and at least part of Cline's. He said the detectives first went to Cline.

"They just called her and asked her what they should do," Saacks said. "When they came to me, they said they had already talked to Tracey about it. But she wasn't available that morning, so I took it through court."

He said police -- and not anyone in the DA's office -- drafted the order. The only change made to the draft, once it was presented to Saacks, was one that helped authorities bypass a rule that normally gives targets of an NTO three days to challenge it in court.

Saacks said he didn't know whether police suggested the order or whether Cline "brought it up" when she talked to them.

The detectives' use of the order was controversial from the outset because lawyers questioned whether authorities had probable cause to demand DNA samples from 46 players.

One Durham lawyer, Tom Loflin, told The Herald-Sun in March 2006 that the order was "mammothly unconstitutional" and a "dragnet fishing expedition."

In one of two civil-rights lawsuits pending against the city, Durham lawyer Bob Ekstrand alleged that police lied in the affidavit supporting the order because they knew they couldn't establish that all 46 of the players had attended the team party that touched off the case.

The suit also contended that Himan and Gottlieb requested the NTO to retaliate against the players for refusing to show up at the planning meeting to answer questions.

Cline is widely expected to run for district attorney this spring.

Debrah said...


$40M to boost Duke undergrad education

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
Jan 10, 2008

DURHAM -- Duke University has received a $40 million commitment from the Duke family endowment that will enable campus leaders to hire 32 new faculty members over the next few years.

The contribution from the Duke Endowment targets hires that will boost undergraduate education at the university, officials said Wednesday after announcing the gift.

Provost Peter Lange and other officials said decisions on which departments and programs will receive the money remain pending.

The deans of Trinity College, the Pratt School of Engineering and other academic units will have to apply for money "on a competitive basis" and explain how "the impact that adding a professorship in a particular area with a particular kind of teaching profile and approach" will contribute to undergraduate programs, Lange said.

Lange added that he thinks it'll take him about five years to distribute the new professorships.

The Duke Endowment's pledge will support the addition of 10 assistant professors, 10 associate professors and 12 full professors. All will be new positions, not jobs already on the university's books, said John Burness, senior vice president for government and public relations.

The $15 million reserved for full professors is matching money that school President Richard Brodhead and other officials have to supplement by finding additional donations.

Burness said the endowment's money is supporting a major plank of Duke's new strategic plan, which calls for the investment of $248 million over the next six to eight years in a variety of efforts to boost faculty hiring and academics.

Deans asked about the donation said it would give them a chance to make Duke an even bigger player in emerging fields of study, particularly those that cross traditional academic disciplines.

"The way things normally go, it's very hard to create a new appointment until someone else leaves," said George McLendon, dean of the faculty of arts and sciences. "For areas that are rapidly developing, that really doesn't make sense. This gives us an opportunity to invest in some of those new areas in ways we just couldn't do otherwise."

McLendon added that the money for full professorships would add to Duke's ability to entice established faculty members to leave peer institutions like Stanford and Harvard.

He cited the recent hires of two tenured Harvard professors -- anthropologist Engseng Ho and biologist Kathleen Donohue -- as examples of the sort of recruiting battle where Duke needs to put "a highly competitive offer" on the table. Ho is a specialist in Islam culture, Donohue in evolutionary biology.

Pratt School dean Rob Clark said he's already talking with other deans at Duke about the potential for cross-discipline hires.

Clark said he's particularly interested in working with the arts and sciences program on an effort to give more undergraduates an introduction "to some of the principles [of engineering] without having them formalize that into a degree."

As Lange distributes the money, "I would expect significant partnering," Clark added.

Pratt and Trinity College are likely to get the bulk of the money, but it's not out of the question that Duke's professional schools also will receive some.

But if they apply, those schools will have to establish that the faculty member they'd hire would be "committed from the beginning to making a contribution to our undergraduate programs," Lange said.

The Duke Endowment is based in Charlotte and supports a variety of nonprofits and private universities. In addition to Duke University, it channels money to Davidson College, Furman University and Johnson C. Smith University.

Anonymous said...

There is so much more to come out of Durham than the LAX case. The entire legal system is broken, the cops are thugs and worse than you can imagine. Countless elected officials from the Governor, down to the City Manager, to the County Clerk are involved. Many fingers have dipped into Durham's cookie jar, and the truth will be extremely explosive to many who have turned their backs on citizens, justice, and any code of ethics or valor. Embrace yourselves for an extreme shock. A tidal wave of truth will boggle your mind, the corruption SHALL be exposed!

Anonymous said...

"What I would really like to know is- "where are they now?" starting with Precious and Mikey but also including many other players."

Perhaps "Precious" and Nifong are preparing to assume one of the new professorships at Duke courtesy of the Duke Family Endowment. They would fit in well there, given that they would be of approximately the same caliber as the 88 boobs who formed their cheering section during the LAX fiasco.

Gary Packwood said...

Thursday, January 10, 2008


By popular demand (and DSEDuke judgment), we will be opening up the message boards beginning today, January 10, 2008. This decision is made largely to enable us to answer any questions that our readers have regarding any of these posts and to respond so that all may see. We will have heavy comment moderation, however, and profanity and gratuitous name calling will not be published. We will try to limit published comments to thoughtful and helpful contributions, but please do not worry if your comment does not get published.

We especially encourage questions and comments from Duke students.


Anonymous said...

Kelly Tilghman
Duke University, 1991- The first, full-time female play-by-play commentator in the history of the PGA TOUR….

Al Sharpton wants another scalp
By Michelle Malkin • January 10

I’m sure you heard about the Golf Network anchorwoman who joked last week that young players who wanted to dethrone Tiger Woods should “lynch him in a back alley.”

The cable news networks, looking to capture some Imus-style ratings, went ga-ga over the story. Despite Woods calling the matter closed, despite the anchorwoman and Woods being long-time friends, and despite the anchorwoman apologizing for her politically incorrect words, the non-scandal lingers.

She has now been suspended. But that ain’t enough for nosybody, race-hustling Al Sharpton.

……Sharpton spoke earlier on CNN’s “Prime News” and continued to push for her firing, saying he wanted to meet with Golf Channel because the comments were “an insult to all blacks.”

Blog poster's Comment: “I could be wrong as this is only a guess, But I’m thinking Al is acting like this because Kelly went to DUKE!!!?”

Debrah said...

It's most unfortunate that James Coleman--someone ostensibly aligned with the Innocence Project, no less--chooses to descend further into embarrassing obfuscation.

Debrah said...

Here's a bizarre and comical reply from Potter to a few commenters like Ken Dallas and Stu Daddy--who strongly disagreed with her, but respectfully--now that she has gone after the dead father of Ann Coulter.

As some here may know, Coulter is too conservative for the Diva; however, she is an excellent writer and has made millions stirring up people like the Potter Pug.

You can say anything you wish to someone who is the direct subject of a debate, but when someone dies--even the parent of Mike Nifong--you don't bring a dead person into an argument in which they are not a player.

No matter how one feels about Coulter, she is entitled to mourn her father and write a column about him in her own way.

Potter chose to slam a dead person, I suppose, because the dead can't talk back.

I decided to leave a scathing comment which was deleted. Her little sterile blog is a place where only those who agree with and parrot her remarks are expected. Even someone as respectful as Stu Daddy will not escape a Potter Pug tantrum.

I do not exaggerate when I say that this person is a serious teller of untruths. It's as if she has a disease.

To make an excuse for deleting comments, she said it was because the Diva "was grossed out" because she is a lesbian.......which was the opposite of what I wrote.

The academy is shattered totally when people like Claire Potter are allowed to teach. Heaven knows the kind of propaganda and indoctrination her students suffer.

However, it's fun to witness this on occasion. It also should be understandable why Wahneema Lubiano would be her "good friend". LOL!

The kooks leading the kooks.


A disgruntled and frustrated Potter spews:

"You know what, DiW thought police? I will grant you the three innocent lacrosse players: actually, I already did some time ago, but y'all are so absorbed in listening to yourselves talk, you never noticed or cared. Or learned to read a sentence as it was written rather than to conform to your own loony, judgmental world views. But:

Do not even imagine me backing down on Joe McCarthy or Ann Coulter. And if you don't like the blog: STOP READING IT!!!! But don't just visit here to bicker."


Michael said...

A rather interesting interview by Moyers on Shelby Steele on two styles of black political interaction and which style Obama uses. It's interesting in that it explains some of the behavior seen in the Duke case.

Debrah said...

I wish to make a suggestion to the individual who continues to show up inside The Diva World and also at Potter's place using the moniker "Mark".

You have stated many times that you are definitely a poster from DIW....and that you and a few others have had email discussions about the Diva.

Good! You know how I thrive on attention.

Although on the other blog you add "from California" to your moniker when not hiding under the "profile unavailable" status.

You might as well be "Buffy from Madagascar" for all anyone knows or cares......

......except for the climate you are attempting to cultivate....which, by the way, will be unsuccessful.

You continue to tell the Diva how much you do not like the fact that I am a part of Wonderland, and that I am "troubled" and in "need of help" for creating enemies of others who have posted here.

While hiding under a phony moniker like Monica Lewinsky under Bill Clinton's office desk, this "Mark" offers websites where I might "get well".

ROTFLM-T's-O !!!

In the recent past there were a few posters who attempted to attack me here saying similar things....perhaps hoping that their strong personal animosities would sway KC to help in this child's play.

We all saw that exercise go down the drain.

The Diva totally understands that a few are still smarting from my strong replies regarding the "Sunshine" silliness......and later, when I reacted with very pointed responses to the fora treason on another blog.

Those who still want to have things both ways and create a wide and easy posting network for themselves off the lacrosse case despise me for highlighting their duplicitous natures.


Then people like "Mark" need to come here, drop the mask of cowardice, and post your concerns.

"Mark" keeps saying that he/she wants DIW to denounce the Diva.

OK, then elaborate and by all means, let KC and the rest of us know which regular DIW poster you are. Wouldn't that be the adult thing to do?

Otherwise, I and others might continue to believe that you are a Gang of 88 and Potter tool. Why else spend so much time trying to soften the blows for these people who have harmed innocent Duke students?

Who inside DIW would have softening the blows for these people and feverishly trying to muzzle the Diva as a priority?

I'm sure that KC would be interested in knowing how much you are "concerned" for his blog---which has been visited by millions from all over the globe and has received multiple awards, and for which he has been lavished as many accolades as for UPI.

No doubt, he will want to know about your "concerns".

But "Mark", whichever poster you are.....or whichever 88 Gang member or enabler you are.....please read, analyze and synthesize this little analogy and take it to heart:


(In "Godfather II" when Michael Corleone and his wife Kay are in a hotel room arguing, she tells him that she did not have a miscarriage, but an abortion....which was designed to cut his machismo to the core.

She tells him that this "Sicilian thing" must end and that she doesn't want to have more of his children.

When she tells him that she's leaving, he says she will never take his children with her.

Al Pacino as Michael asks menacingly, "Don't you know me?")


The Diva takes points from both Kay Corleone and Michael.

This "Sicilian thing" is an analogy to the destructive "88 thing" and it must end for the good of the academy....or at least there must be a consistent fight against this cancer. Anything or anyone who wishes to soften the blows for such people will be highlighted as enablers and for their duplicity.

You expect me to accept traffic directions and opinions from the very people who have tried to destroy KC and Wonderland ever since he began illuminating their destructive behavior?

You think these people have any objective but to bury the truth with reconstructed narratives?

How stupid are some of you to think the Diva would ever acquiesce to such nonsense?

And anyone like "Mark" who shows up after his/her little email network decides to try to intimidate the Diva into submission should look to Michael Corleone's line for my reply:

"Don't you know me?"

Never gonna happen.

Debrah said...

Here, NC NAACP's Barber and Irving Joyner go out of their way to fight for a man whose innocence is not clear.

(It should be noted that in the reader online comment section, all comments bring up the Lacrosse Hoax and how these same men fought against justice in that case.)


NAACP steps in to aid man facing accessory accusation

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
Jan 14, 2008

DURHAM -- A Durham law instructor and the Durham-based North Carolina chapter of the NAACP are riled up over the plight of a young Wilson man, who was locked up for more than three years on homicide, rape and kidnapping charges that finally were dropped last month for lack of evidence.

Then the man was hit with an accessory accusation in the same case.

"It's ludicrous," state NAACP President William J. Barber II said of the new charge against James A. Johnson, 21.

"Why do they keep heaping tragedy on tragedy?" the Rev. Barber said. "This is a national case. It's not just a state case. It's a defining moment. We're at a critical mass."

According to Barber, judicial officials should have learned from the now-ended Duke lacrosse scandal and conceded Johnson had absolutely nothing to do with the 2004 slaying of Brittany Willis, rather than piling on a last-minute, trumped-up accessory allegation for which there is no evidence.

Barber recalled that the state's top law-enforcement officer, Attorney General Roy Cooper, stepped forward last year to acknowledge that three university lacrosse players were innocent and had been falsely prosecuted on charges of sexually attacking an exotic dancer.

"Where are the state officials now?" Barber said in an interview. "They should acknowledge this kid [Johnson] was held for years for something he didn't do. It was a major miscarriage of justice. Many believe that if James had had a good lawyer, had he been wealthy and white, he never would have been charged in the first place."

Rather than being charged with a new crime, Johnson should be rewarded as a "hero" for leading authorities to the actual killer of Willis, Barber said.

The man Johnson identified as the perpetrator, Kenneth Meeks, pleaded guilty last year and indicated he committed the crime alone. He is serving a sentence of life in prison without parole.

Meanwhile, N.C. Central University law professor Irving Joyner agrees Johnson is innocent of the accessory charge and is defending him against it, along with lawyer Bill Massengale of Chapel Hill. Rich Rosen, a UNC professor of law and leader of the Innocence Project, is advising the N.C. NAACP State Conference in the case.

Still, the new charge likely will go before a grand jury today, taken there by a special prosecutor who has declined comment on the case.

On Sunday, the NAACP held a rally at a Wilson church to raise money and demand that Johnson "be left alone."

While Johnson did not attend the rally, several hundred people -- including his parents, Arthur and Beverly Johnson -- attended to show their support and march to the courthouse while singing "We Shall Overcome" and chanting "free James Johnson."

"We cannot stop challenging the system that has torn this community apart by pursuing a conviction at all costs rather than truth and righteousness," Barber said last week.

The accessory charge alleges Johnson had something to do with cleaning or washing a car connected to the Willis murder, which might have destroyed fingerprints and other evidence.

Johnson could receive a prison term of up to six years if convicted of the felony offense -- far less than the life-plus-many-years sentence he faced on the original murder, rape and kidnapping charges.

But the way Barber and Joyner see it, even one more day behind bars would be too much.

"We had a gruesome murder," said Barber. "But we have the killer in prison now. What we're trying to prevent is a lynching [of Johnson]."

Joyner said the new accessory charge is inextricably intertwined with small-town politics.

"They're swinging at straws," he told The Herald-Sun. "There is certainly no admissible evidence that would support this charge. It's a matter of speculation and perception in the Wilson community. They perceive that the NAACP has gotten inappropriately involved to get a guilty man off the hook. It's just local politics."

According to Joyner, two people at the scene said Johnson was not an accessory in the case.

"Where is the evidence it did happen?" he asked. "There isn't any."

On the other hand, some apparently think the original homicide, rape and kidnapping charges against Johnson should have remained in place.

A Jan. 9 editorial in The Wilson Daily Times said a prosecutor's dismissal of those accusations last month was "not a universally popular decision."

In fact, some spectators jeered and shouted obscenities at Barber after a recent court hearing, the editorial noted.

Debrah said...

A riveting Q&A with KC at DSEDuke.

mac said...

KC's comments about the damning effect of being labelled a racist or sexist are true, and getting more visible all the time.

One day, people will be immune to the words "racist" and "sexist," and those words won't have any effect upon their employment; one day, those words will be considered harrassing, ugly words - unless they're used by the persons they're intended to describe. (As a white male, I may be the only one who is able to call myself the "R-word.")

One day, we may have to use the first letters of each of those words, like the "N-word" or the "Q-word."

In the meantime, people who have lost jobs or contracts because of accusations of "racism" or "sexism" may find that there are lots of hungry lawyers willing to help them reclaim their reputations.

Imagine that: Grant Farred being sued for claiming that white Duke students are practicing "secret racism" because they registered to vote!

One day, one day...
One day at a time.
Pendulums have their own pace.

Michael said...

It's interesting to see the calls of racism and sexism play out in the Democratic Primary. I think that Obama and Clinton would rather bury the hatchet on racism as it's an overall loser for both of them and the party. The media seems to be the loser on the sexism stuff.

Perhaps some day being called racist or sexist will open one up to a charge of slander or libel.

Anonymous said...

Divah said...

This "Sicilian thing" is an analogy to the destructive "88 thing" and it must end for the good of the academy....or at least there must be a consistent fight against this cancer. Anything or anyone who wishes to soften the blows for such people will be highlighted as enablers and for their duplicity.

Divah, let me share my analogy. Here’s how I view our nation’s enemies in the War on Terror (probably better named, as suggested by Christopher Hitchens, the War Against Jihad).

First, we have Al-Qaeda, the guys who did 9/11 and other murderous attacks on us and our friends. If I’m the commander-in-chief, these guys get no consideration. As far as I’m concerned, they joined AQ to die, and I’m glad to help with that (after appropriate “enhanced interrogation”).

Next in line, we have the Taliban, the guys who did NOT launch attacks against us but who (1) enabled AQ to do so and (2) are ideological siblings of AQ anyway. It is my understanding that the Taliban is made up mostly of members of the Pushtun tribe, which is Afghanistan’s (and Pakistan’s) largest tribe, but still a minority. As the unrepentant drivers of AQ’s “getaway car”, these Taliban guys would get pretty much the same treatment from me as the AQ guys themselves – though I would keep in mind that the Taliban at least are fighting on their native soil, unlike AQ, which is a team of crazed international killers.

Finally, we have the Sunni militia groups in Iraq. Now, these people had even less to do with AQ terrorism than did the Taliban. Also, Sunnis are an even smaller minority in Iraq than are the Pushtun in Afghanistan, but the Sunnis have been ruling over the Shiite majority so long, they’ve come to believe it is practically their birthright. So, in addition to us taking away their temporal power in Iraq, AQ infiltrators into Iraq convinced many of the Sunnis that we were also the enemies of Islam. I recall when two years ago the idea of an amnesty for these Sunnis was discussed, some of my many military friends were opposed – on the grounds that there should be no amnesty for killers of Americans. While sympathetic to that argument, I disagreed with my friends. What at last happened was that AQ overplayed its hand in Iraq while the Americans underplayed theirs. While the Americans were avoiding bombing mosques and urging that the new Shiite rulers make concessions to the Sunnis, AQ’s demands for intermarriage into native Sunni tribes and for strict Koranic law and its extreme brutality finally alienated the Sunnis to the point of instigating a Sunni uprising against AQ in Iraq – or as the Sunnis themselves call it, “the Awakening”. As a result, attacks on U.S. forces have reached their lowest level recorded since the beginning of the insurgency in 2003. Average weekly U.S. combat deaths have plunged from about 30 a week to about 4 a week. In other words, American patience and AQ extremism produced the Sunni turnaround (“the Awakening”) that has produced a situation where the U.S. cannot lose the conflict militarily.

And so I look at the 88 who took part in the 4/6/06 attack at Duke (except for Arlie Petters, who disavowed his participation almost immediately) as I look at AQ. To them, I have nothing to say. As I have said before, someone should lay pistols on their desks – after some “enhanced interrogation” at the hands of attorneys in court. Then I look at their ideological allies – both at Duke and at other universities – as the equivalent of the Taliban. There is probably no hope for these people, but I am willing to talk with them at least in order to urge their divorce from 88ism and entry (or return) to true scholarship. Claire Potter is probably an example of one of these.

Finally, I think I see a large number of professors who, while left-of-center, are ambivalent about or even mildly suspicious of the actions of the 88 – especially the 4/6 attack. The 88ists have worked hard to persuade this group that we critics of the 88 are actually enemies of “intellectualism and scholarship” with which most professors identify. These are the professors who I would treat like Gen. Petraeus treated the Sunni militias: “We are not your enemies; the 88ists are. We are not insisting on putting any ideological strait-jackets on professors; they are. We will not ask you to defend our attacks on our own students while we hide behind tenure and our university’s deep-pockets; they have already done that. You can join yourselves with the 88ists if you want to, but not because you need to.” An example of a member of this group might be the music professor who calls himself the “reharmonizer”. For these professors, I think it is incumbent upon us to show our openness and good faith. Many of them need to be educated about the evils of the “political correctness on campus” that led to the 4/6 attack. We could show them stories by other professors – for example, one where political correctness led to a professor’s suicide. (The professor, an expert in Kenyan business practices, commented in class one day that black Kenyan businesses couldn’t compete with Indian-run ones until the blacks became less generous about giving credit to family and friends. For this he was, of course, denounced as a racist, lost his job, and eventually killed himself.)

And so I leave it to you, Divah. While I view you as an ally; I don’t agree with a “take-no-prisoners” approach to all enemies – I view many of these enemies as potential friends.


Debrah said...


You need to know that I had a very long post in response to (4:46PM), but KC wouldn't put it through.

I'll sum it up, though:

There are two kinds of people in this world, fundamentally.

Those who don't waste the valuable time of others and who give their opinions honestly.....

.....and those who tap dance in an effort to talk out both sides of their mouths.

No one needs to coax allegedly educated adults to do the right thing. I have no use for those who support criminal and destructive behavior and endlessly make excuses for it.

You give these people no credit for having some semblance of intelligence. They know what they did and what they continue to do. It's their hope and desire to cover everything by screaming "anti-intellectualism" and other tired and silly phrases so critics will stop bothering them with reality.

You can ask those who have known me for a long time. They might not always like me, but they respect me for not wasting their time.

I much prefer respect.

Dancing with these people will never be to their tune.

Change must come from them. It is not hyperbole to say that they are in many ways evil.....and that's OK.

It's their parasitic lifestyle and their cowardice--(much like those who lurk and harass using phony monikers)--that's the deal breaker.

Anonymous said...

Cogratulations, KC, on the quality of this blog.
But now, of course, you have an obligation to monitor events through to the end, until the wrongs are properly set right and justice is served. The consequences extend far beyond the nearly-ruined lives of innocent and decent young men. And you must keep us blog-readers fully informed.
If you don't, I'll set the Group of 88 on you. Wait, that's not a threat, it's a joke. I know, I'll have the NY Times do an article about you. No, that won't work either - nobody believes a word they print any more.
Seriously, you have exposed, inter alia, a spineless and dishonest university administration, a wacky and potentially group of academics, a corrupt police force, a dishonest nurse and a (words fail me) district attorney. The common thread is that each of these had their own agenda.
I can't wait for the rest of the truth to come out.
My major disappointment in all this - Brodhead goes unpunished dispite the fact that he played a major role in a swcandal that scarred and nearly ruined the lives of three young men.
Again, KC, congratulations.
(From Canada, where we also enjoy academic political correctness and spineless university administrations).

Debrah said...

A column from the ever-confused Chafe:

William H. Chafe : Politics and the legacy of Martin Luther King

Guest columnist : The Herald-Sun
Jan 20, 2008

On this Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the memory of the late civil rights hero is being tested by the front-running Democratic candidates. Barack Obama regularly evokes Dr. King in his speeches, often wrapping himself in the mystique of King's soaring rhetoric and projecting visions of change reminiscent of King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Hillary Clinton similarly places herself in the tradition of civil rights reform, but of late has run into trouble by emphasizing that it took practical political leadership by President Lyndon Johnson to make civil rights legislation a reality, thereby emphasizing her campaign slogan that experience in using power effectively is just as important as visionary idealism.

The subsequent bickering by the Obama and Clinton camps over who "owns" the King legacy has been unseemly. More important, it has ignored the historical reality of the man they seek to honor.

This is not a new phenomenon. For more than two decades, American politicians have crafted an image of King that has made him into an all-American "moderate," safe for everyone to honor. King's prophetic calls for radical change in the structure of America's racial and economic life have been muted. Instead, politicians have trumpeted King's demand that individuals be judged "by the content of their character," not the color of their skin. Such a construction of King's life drastically diminishes his real message. In reality, every time King pleaded for reconciliation and redemption, he simultaneously demanded repentance and far-reaching change.

Clearly, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson deserve credit for embracing civil rights reform. But they would never have arrived at that point were it not for the fact that the civil rights movement -- led by King -- gave them no alternative. The civil rights revolution, from the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 to the Greensboro sit-ins in 1960 to the Birmingham Children's Crusade in 1963, literally forced America's white leaders, against their will, to confront the reality of American racism that for so long they had ignored.

What Senator Clinton failed to acknowledge is the degree to which Kennedy and Johnson had records prior to 1963 that were as shameful on issues of civil rights as that of many conservative white Southern legislators. Kennedy had never advocated civil rights legislation as a senator, and voted to weaken the 1957 Civil Rights Bill. He was endorsed in 1960 by reactionary segregationists like Alabama's Governor John Patterson. And despite his promise in the 1960 campaign to end segregation in publicly financed housing by issuing an executive order, he signed that order (two years later) only after civil rights supporters sent the White House millions of pens, mocking the emptiness of his campaign pledge.

Lyndon Johnson was no better. As a senator, he refused to support federal anti-lynching legislation, subverted efforts to end Southern senators' ability to filibuster civil rights bills to death and failed to support a Fair Employment Practices law in 1949, arguing that it would "inflame the passions and prejudices" of white folks. Repeatedly, and in public, he called his chauffeur the "n" word. Although he receives credit for shepherding a civil rights bill through Congress in 1957, Johnson in fact eviscerated that law of all substantive content, leading liberal senators to call it a "sham." In short, there is no basis for thinking that either Kennedy or Johnson would have voluntarily embraced civil rights reform if left to their own druthers.

This latest political debate ignores the prophetic radicalism of King's fundamental message. The 1963 March on Washington was for "Jobs and Freedom," not just freedom. King insisted economic inequality had to be rooted out if racial inequality were to be solved. In his critique of the Vietnam War, he called America one of the worst "purveyors" of violence in the world. With growing insistence, culminating in the Poor People's Campaign of 1968, he urged a revolution in the social order, not just in terms of the color line, but also in terms of eliminating poverty, war and disease.

On these issues there has been far less attention by the major candidates, with the possible exception of John Edwards and his call for universal health care, an end to "two Americas" and a major jobs program. As the candidates take up the cudgels about their relationship to King's legacy, it might be helpful if they acknowledged the depth and breadth of his real vision, and paid more attention to implementing it.

William Chafe is the Alice Mary Baldwin Professor of History at Duke University, and the former president of the Organization of American Historians. He has written widely on issues of civil rights.


To which the Diva replied with a letter to the H-S:

I was amused by the feverish effort put forth by Professor Chafe as he attempts to whip up the legacy of MLK, Jr. into one more akin to Malcolm X of that time. Even Malcolm evolved into a more moderate position once he moved away from radical Islam.

Education is a powerful thing. Pity so many in the academy are hermetically sealed inside a 1960's bell jar.

The difficulty that Chafe and his ilk will have for the duration is that the thoughtful, the intelligent, and the truly educated people of good will are not buying his brand of tired and overblown rhetoric any longer.

We were all treated to an alarming dose of Chafe's illogical histrionics when he wrote a column comparing the Lacrosse Hoax with the case of Emmett Till.

MLK, Jr. never said that white men or anyone of any other race should be saddled and framed for a crime that never occurred just so bitter opportunistic people can exercise their perversions and their own racist hatreds.

Barack Obama is a threat to this soiled and obsolete mindset. He is able to reach across all self-imposed borders which many wish to construct.

Obama is a charismatic, transforming, and able man who more than anyone on the political stage exemplifies how much progress this country has made and the true goals of MLK, Jr.

Those who cannot or will not evolve will be left they should be.

Will Conway said...

so is this the end?

Stuart McGeady said...

No, this is not the end. Just have to know where to look: Chafe, Hillary, and LBJ posted by KC Johnson at Cliopatria.

Debrah said...

TO 1:25 PM--

No, dear Will.

Nothing as magnitudinous as Wonderland is ever really over.

On another note, I am pleased to report that the H-S printed the Diva letter ripping Chafe--every word, untouched by an editor's pen.

I was a bit surprised, actually, that Ashley would allow one of his 88 buddies to be criticized.

kcjohnson9 said...

A reminder:

I will be back to post on the plaintiffs' responses in the civil suit (due in around 10 weeks); and will also post if there are any other significant case-related developments in the interim.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see what was learned in Wonderland being taken into Chafe's world, a history blog, among Chafe's peers. That is where it really matters.

Gary Packwood said...

Will Conway 1/25/2008 1:25 PM said... is this the end?
No, this is most certainly not the end but Due Process is difficult to understand when you are very young.

Due Process, a constitutional concept (Fourteenth Amendment), is all about fairness and being effective but not especially efficient.

So, be patient and watch over the next several months as the truth begins to be revealed.

Be prepared to be amazed.

Anonymous said...

Inre: "So is this the end?"

"...Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." - Winston Churchill.

Spoken at the Mansion House Lord Mayor's Luncheon following the victory at El Alameinin North Africa, London, 10 November 1942

I was just reading about the homeless problem at a park in Berkley. The similarities between that problem and the Klan of 88 at Duke are, to me, striking.

One Spook said...

In August of 2006, following the New York Times' incredibly poor Wilson/Glater coverage of the lacrosse hoax, KC Johnson wrote an e-mail letter to the Times' executive editor Bill Keller and news editor Jill Abramson.

KC's letter, posted on August 28, stated in part:

"I've read The Times my whole life. I've always viewed it with the utmost respect. But to read your coverage of a case I know a lot about leaves me utterly shaken. I don't know if your reporting is driven by incompetence, laziness, or an agenda, but it's an embarrassment.

I commented afterword that I was somewhat amused at KC's shock since I had read the Times for over 30 years and was greatly disturbed by its false, misleading and agenda-driven coverage of a subject "I know a lot about" --- the US military.

The Times latest "embarrassment" began on January 13th with a series "War Torn ... about veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed killings, or been charged with them, after coming home" that is so demonstrably biased, misleading, and poorly written that it makes The Times coverage of the lacrosse hoax look like gospel by comparison.

As KC and other bloggers exposed the false Times coverage of the lacrosse hoax, attorney and blogger John Hinderaker has skillfully eviscerated the "War Torn" piece here, and here which includes a response by New York Times' Public Editor, Clark Hoyt.

Don't be shocked; The Times has been an agenda-driven newspaper for a long, long time.

One Spook

Debrah said...

Nifong off the hook for now

Debrah said...

Earlier this month, David Rudolf, an attorney for Seligmann, said he and other lawyers on the team did not plan to let Nifong hide in bankruptcy court.

Rudolf said they plan to argue that Nifong maliciously and intentionally went after the players long after he knew about gaping holes in his case.

Rudolf is a pit bull!

No rest for Mikey, I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

Free Republic News Item

Nifong off the hook for now

Posted on 01/29/2008 11:46:17 AM
DURHAM -- Former Durham district attorney Mike Nifong is off the hook for the time being from any civil lawsuits.

The judge overseeing the Duke Lacrosse lawsuit filed by three exonerated players has put their suit on hold.

(Excerpt) Read more at ... ^ | Jan. 29, 2008

mac said...

Amanda Marcotte, the semi-skilled, foul-mouthed marvelette formerly of John Edwards' campaign, must be rolling over in her lair.

Justice should be for everyone, not just John Boy's clients; justice for his clients usually meant a fat check for him.

Edwards and his surrogates seem to have forgotten the concept of equal protection, and it's hard not to take a little schadenfreude at his departure; if Edwards could not spend an ounce of energy on the hoax/conspiracy, then he got what he deserved. Good riddance.

Whether Obama wins or not, his strategy ought to capitalize on the fact that he was the ONLY Presidential from either party calling for a federal investigation of the Hoax. If Obama is looking for an angle, this is it!

The stoudt I just drained tastes like honey.

Anonymous said...

If the charges in the suit at and are at all true, many senior Duke officials not only need to resign or be fired, they should be jailed on gross civil rights abuses and conspiracy.

The allegations are shocking beyond belief. Is this the Soviet Union?

Anonymous said...

dorothy said...
Some of the questions asked upstream are addressed in a post today at

That's the longest ad hominem attack I've ever seen.

However, like any ad hominem attack, it is irrelevant in regard to the facts of the case.

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

Debrah said...

For those who often check the N&O for news related to the civil suits and other case-related lacrosse matters, the N&O political blogs are quite lively and provide spirited debate.

Anonymous said...


You've admired some of what president Brodhead has done and you've referred approvingly to the provost Lange. What do you think of the building celebration that the two of them are sponsoring on Monday? The big ad was in the Duke Chronicle on Friday and there's an story online at Duke Today. The building is a newly renovated space with posh offices for angry studies, cultural anthropology, literature department, and Duke human rights center. They're making a big to-do about moving those gang88sters into the new building.

Those people aren't going to be punished. They're being rewarded. They're never going to apologize. Why should they? They've got Brodhead and Lange in their pockets.

Anonymous said...

Re Anon at 9:18

"Welcome to Duke -- where we punish the innocent (Pressler and the players) and reward the guilty (the G88 and their ilk.)"

Duke Prof

Debrah said...

Regarding the update: I want the posts to total a million words. That means KC has many more posts to go.

BTW.....this is a fun and entertaining and also educational place to go.

You can comment on almost anything if you can frame it in the context of "predictably irrational".

I'm looking for a door to open for the lacrosse case.

That should be an easy one.