Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Moneta: “Not Really a Topic I’m Interested in Talking About”

In a recent radio interview, Duke’s Larry Moneta criticized a website called juicycampus.com. Moneta pointed to the site’s anonymous rumor-mongering to describe it (correctly) as worthy of condemnation.

Moneta’s outrage about the site prompted an understandable question from panelist Christopher Anderson, who wondered why Moneta hadn’t seemed concerned in spring 2006, when Duke professors and some students embarked on a rumor-mongering campaign against the lacrosse players. “I don’t see any correlation between the two incidents,” responded Moneta. The exchange is below.

I’m puzzled that Moneta struggled to see the connection raised by Anderson. After all, what were Group of 88’er Grant Farred’s unsubstantiated musings about the lacrosse players’ “arrogant sexual prowess” or their having committed “perjury” if not rumor-mongering about Duke students?

Though Moneta might not have done so, surely others would see a link between expressing concern about a website making false, anonymous rumors about Duke students and condemning Karla Holloway’s sending out a January 2007 mass e-mail containing a claim that she either knew or should have known was false: that a secret witness existed who would say there were racist remarks when Reade Seligmann and Collin were at the lacrosse party.

And it seems to me that a professor—say, Peter Wood—informing a New Yorker reporter that a lacrosse player had advocated genocide against Native Americans (when, in fact, Wood was basing his claim on nothing more than an anonymous course evaluation form) poses a far more serious issue of protecting student rights than speaking up against an anonymous rumor-mongering website.

Could it be that one reason Moneta wasn’t too concerned with the rumor-mongering of Holloway, Farred, and Wood was that he shared their basic approach to the case? This was, after all, the same Larry Moneta who—when the case first broke—dismissed attorney Samantha Ekstrand’s request that the administration protect the lacrosse players against the local mob and against Duke professors intent on retaliation. Why no concern with the lacrosse players? As Moneta told Ekstrand, “Frankly, Samantha, I don’t believe them.”

When pressed on the lacrosse case by Anderson, Moneta responded bluntly: “Not really a topic I’m interested in talking about.”


Anonymous said...

What a wiesel ...a real life example of a truly pathetic individual you usually read about in fiction.

Anonymous said...

Duke as a university and Moneta as an academic must be real proud of this exchange. I hope and trust the YouTube clip will be widely circulated and played. Duke, Moneta, and the rest of the G'88 deserve nothing less. Surely, even these ass-clowns have to realize by now--and even more so as every day passes--that the Duke Rape Hoax/Frame will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Debrah said...

This man (Moneta) is so distasteful.

Such a useless representative of any organization. It's still amazing that Duke would hire a person like this.

Can't imagine that any man who is supposed to be a professional would show up on such a forum and conduct himself this way.

I would have kept asking the question and caused a stir just so the incident would make it to the newspapers and TV news.

Anderson should have pushed it further.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Duke have a more credible spokesman than Larry "Water Buffalo" Moneta? Didn't anyone in authority know that he -- of all people -- was planning to be interviewed on a live radio show about the importance of truth and protecting students' reputations, and why rumormongering and defaming students are bad ideas?

One of the defining features of Duke's mishandling of the hoax and its aftermath, from the beginning, has been its inability to prevent members of the administration and faculty from mouthing off -- orally or in writing -- to media and print outlets.

For Moneta to pop up as the public face of Duke and get involved in an entirely predictable exchange like this is an embarrassment.

"Not really a topic I'm interested in talking about." Indeed.

Debrah said...

Larry's primary objective is to break 80 on the golf course.

Well, at least his life doesn't revolve around getting massages.....yet.....a la Burness.

He's got a degree from the University of Massachusetts and a master's from Springfield College, wherever that is.

Anonymous said...

Well ... which is it, Larry? Do you see no similarities or is it that you want to "move on."?

It's like Moneta tries to spin things but he gets dizzy really easily.

The Drill SGT said...


Are you sure that was Anderson?

Anonymous said...

I've never heard a water buffalo before. So that's what they sound like!!!

Anonymous said...

This is water buffalo Moneta. What struck me was the arrogant tone of his answer. These people think they're above reproach and not at all accountable of for their views or behavior. Frankly, they make my blood boil.

Anonymous said...

These academic people are arrogant beyond belief. No wonder the G'88 ran amuck with their outright lies and gossip mongering. What frauds? Where is their integrity? They have never been held accountable for this, and they are so arrogant and powerful that they will not be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Total arrogance. These people do not have a lick of shame. None.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, the rude man questioning Moneta has zero capacity for understanding nuance. Let me explain . . .

A. JuicyCampus slander is bad.
B. Duke 88 slander is not bad.

A. Strippers at lacrosse parties are bad.
B. Strippers with sparklers up their butts at events sponsored by feminists are not bad.

Is that clear now?

W. R. Chambers said...

That Dean Moneta sees no correlation is either true or false. Either way his reply, without any explanation, does him no credit. It does suggest that when he answered the question, he was caught off guard, was angry or was defensive or all three. Nothing new. Nothing important. Nothing helpful. A lost opportunity to speak honestly and clearly and even to apologize. It's a fair bet, with litigation pending, that Duke administrators have been instructed not to talk about the lacrosse case. So this brief clip, it seems to me, while it does not reflect well on Dean Moneta, is a pretty thin reed on which to draw any conclusions about Dean Moneta.

Anonymous said...

Sorry this is off topic for Moneta but he is hardly worth staying on topic for. LSU's problem now.

Here are some more very wise words from KC:

NYU and their Middle East Hypocrisy

and even more hypocrisy from Women's Studies. Here is someone who is a star through her own merits and because she is not a True Believer the True Believers have a pathetic hissy fit.

Hissy Fit

Thanks KC for a nice article. Guess I'll cancel my trip to the fabled islands of Dubai.

HMS Defiant said...

Moneta is a typical Duke pussy in this case. You just can't find deep thought at Duke. I'm surprised that any parent would pay to send their children to this blight in higher education.

Anonymous said...

I think he is scared of jail time.

Anonymous said...

NPR's Frank Deford on Lacrosse in general and Duke Lacrosse in the NCAA tournement:

Debrah said...

I'm becoming very angry after skimming "reharmonizer's" latest post.

All along, he has attempted to weave a little facade of objectivity around his comments and his criticism of KC and all of us who participate inside Wonderland.

This post shows just how raw his pro-Gang of 88 mania really is.

He's never been anything but a fellow traveler on their web of deceit, cronyism, faux scholarship, and open bigotry.

They have tried for so long to project their morbid bigotry and their outdated views onto others.

This kind of rhetoric tells their story.

It's really a good thing that I never run into these people, especially "reharmonizer". I take enormous offense at how he has characterized readers of DIW.

If he and his 88 friends had very much going on, they wouldn't need to try to prove themselves endlessly with their infantile playground barbs.

One should ask: Why can't they let go? Why are they so overtaken with feverish obsession?

Well, KC is addictive.


Debrah said...

Another Diva message for "reharmonizer".......awaiting his approval. LOL!

He's really becoming very nasty with his characterizations. The Diva will not take it!

I linked one of the YouTube tunes for him. I hope he likes it!

Debrah | May 21, 2008 at 11:03 am

Oh “reharmonizer”. You really must move beyond the old ways and come into the 21st century where the brilliant and sensually exciting KC resides.

Also, it does not serve you well to attempt to minimize DIW’s commentariat. Very bad form, indeed.

Since you are also on the musical side of town, let me offer this for your listening pleasure.

It might help explain the almost-”harem” appeal and the fascination with KC .

“He’s so contagious! He turns my pages.”

Your fellow academics should not be envious. KC was just born with the intellectual “it factor”.

A man for the 21st century!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:48: I hope you mean weasel.

Anonymous said...

Of course he's not interested in talking about it: He's probably about to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit that (hopefully) will put him and the rest of the bottom-feeders at Duke in the poor house well into the next century. He may be dumb, but his attorneys likely aren't and thus they've probably ordered him to 'shut up' re. the whole seamy affair.

As an aside, K.C., did you hear the bit about Duke Lacrosse on NPR this morning by Frank Deford? If not, see www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90642119
for the story.

Anonymous said...

My Bad -- In my earlier post on this thread I confused Joe Alleva (not about the truth) with Dean Larry M. I apologize to each for putting them down by confusing one with another.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you've all heard:
1. Those who can, do.
2. Those who can't teach.
However, Mr. Moneta is only fulfilling the final phase of the De-Evolution which states:
3. Those who can't teach become the administrators of academia.
JimB's Dog

Anonymous said...


Time for you, young lady, to put "Reharmonizer" on "ignore." He uses the same modus operandi everywhere -- on any blog:


Somehow wheedles topic of Duke LAX and Professor Johnson into that forum's discussion.


Attacks Professor Johnson and D-i-W using over-generalizations and lame arguments (i.e. Weigman wasn't trying to play the race card with her "tarred and feathered" letter) and hypocritical ad hominem for his major points. [This is a long paragraph].


Usually includes an attention-whoring link to his website and one weak criticism of the Klan of 88 to show his "objectivity." [This is a much shorter paragraph].

If I were an attorney representing any of the plaintiffs in the lax civil suits, Zimmerman would be on my deposition list. He has been poking into what the Klan of 88 did and corresponding with at least some of them (or their enablers).

Anonymous said...

KC's post aptly depicts Moneta's disdain for the lacrosse players and his complete lack of empathy for what the players and their families have gone through.

The complaint filed in Feb., 2008 against Duke/Durham by Cooper & Kirk on behalf of 38 of the lacrosse players includes a number of examples of Duke's lack of concern for the players' safety and well being. Here's a few examples which involve Moneta :

1) par.254. The same night ( Mar. 25 ) the protestors moved from 610 Buchanan to a nearby duplex... This house, owned by Duke, was occupied by lacrosse team members William Wolcott, K.J.Sauer and Erik Henkelman. The protestors surrounded the front of the house and banged on the windows screaming " Shame ." Wolcott called Larry Moneta, Duke's V.P. for Student Affairs for help. Moneta said there was nothing he could do.

2) par. 243. At the March 25 meeting, the players' parents demanded that Duke remove their sons' photos from its website. The parents were both concerned for their sons' safety and afraid that the accuser might study publicly available photos in order to falsely pick out lacrosse players from a photo ;line-up. Although Moneta promised to have the photos removed that day, Duke inexplicably delayed taking such action. This allowed enough time for bloggers to download the players' pictures and to post them on websites devoted to attacks on the players. Duke's delay also allowed the photos of 43 players to be downloaded and used on a Wanted-style " Vigilante "poster that was widely distributed on the campus a few days later "

3 ) par.244. At the same meeting, the parents asked Moneta to remind professors of Duke's policy prohibiting harassment of students, including in-class harassment of students by professors. Moneta refused, even though at least one lacrosse player had been the subject of such in- class harassment the day before.


Anonymous said...

On what radio station was this interview? And who is the condescending female interviewer?

Anonymous said...

"Not really a topic I'm interesting in talking about" = Sore loser.

Mad Hatter said...

Thanks Debrah for all of your insights. Althought I am silent, lacking your knowledge of the Durham workings, I await your comments with impatience. You are able to provide balcance to a very unbalanced situation.

Debrah said...

"If I were an attorney representing any of the plaintiffs in the lax civil suits, Zimmerman would be on my deposition list. He has been poking into what the Klan of 88 did and corresponding with at least some of them (or their enablers)."

Very good point!

Thanks for adding that to the discussion.

Debrah said...

Hi Mad Hatter!

I've wondered where you've been.

It seems that the Duke Lacrosse Hoax saga is going to last well into the coming decade.

How could anyone have predicted the day Mikey appeared on the Dan Abrams show giving his "choke-hold demonstration" that such an evil web would be woven?

And now a whole new show has begun. The goofy Gang of 88 will keep trying to rewrite their history for yet another train wreck to view.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Debrah said...

More ineptitude.

This time with deadly consequences:

Officer erred in charging Lovette

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
May 22, 2008

DURHAM -- A police detective missed out on having double slaying suspect Laurence A. Lovette Jr. charged with burglary months before the shootings he's now linked to because she invoked the wrong statute on a warrant, city officials say.

The mistake led to Lovette being charged in November with felony breaking and entering instead of a more serious count of first-degree burglary, City Manager Patrick Baker said in a report to the City Council.

Baker added that "the failure to file the most appropriate charge is not acceptable as a matter of course," and that Police Chief Jose Lopez has "taken the appropriate corrective actions."

Lovette is in jail facing murder charges in connection with the slaying of Duke University graduate student Abhijit Mahato in January and UNC Chapel Hill student body president Eve Carson in March.

He was in custody on the breaking-and-entering charge from Nov. 13 to Jan. 16, two days before police found Mahato's body inside an apartment off Anderson Street. Lovette went free on probation after pleading guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor breaking and entering.

Mayor Bill Bell asked Baker to review the case after the owner of the Hope Valley home Lovette broke into the night of Nov. 7-8 complained about the plea deal.

She had thought Lovette would be charged with burglary, and believed that if he had been, he would have been in jail on the dates Mahato and Carson were killed.

The homeowner -- whom The Herald-Sun isn't identifying in accordance with its policy on using the names of surviving crime victims -- has said the detective who handled the case, then-Cpl. Patrice Vickers, assured her Lovette would be charged with first-degree burglary.

The crime met the textbook definition of burglary because it occurred at night when the homeowner and her husband were asleep on the premises.

But on Lovette's warrant, Vickers invoked the wrong statute. North Carolina law lists burglary as General Statute 14-51. Breaking and entering -- a far more common violation -- is General Statute 14-54.

Vickers also somehow failed to notice that the warrant listed breaking and entering after she entered the number of the statute, Baker said in an interview Wednesday with The Herald-Sun.

She and the assistant district attorney who handled the case, Frances Miranda-Watkins, never discussed the case before Lovette's plea hearing on Jan. 16.

The charge "could have been addressed and amended had the investigating officer and prosecuting attorney been in contact with one another" before the plea, Baker said in his report to the council.

He added that he'd asked Chief Lopez to work with the DA's office "to assure open and effective communication" between police and prosecutors "in all criminal matters."

There was never any confusion on the police side that Lovette's crime merited the more serious charge. "Usually we file all the potential charges possible," Baker said on Wednesday. "In fact, the investigator's notes have 'burglary' written all over them. She simply put in the wrong citation."

Baker and Lopez said Vickers -- who was promoted to sergeant in March -- owned up to the mistake.

She "stepped right up and said, 'This is what I should have done, and it didn't happen,' " Lopez said. "We're satisfied it's not going to happen again."

Lopez added that Vickers did a good job solving the break-in. She linked Lovette to the case with fingerprint evidence.

Baker is the second key official to look into the handling of the case.

District Attorney David Saacks reviewed it in April and said Miranda-Watkins also made mistakes. He felt she should have looked more closely at the facts and refused to offer a misdemeanor plea, given that the house's owners were home when the break-in occurred.

Saacks voiced doubt that prosecutors could have proven the break-in occurred at night, as the homeowner didn't report it until more than an hour after sunrise on Nov. 8.

A conviction for first-degree burglary was the only outcome that would have assured Lovette prison time in connection with the case, Saacks said in April. All other possible charges and plea bargains allowed probation instead of an active prison sentence.

But "whether or not [the charging error] had an impact on the ultimate disposition of the case doesn't really matter," Baker said. "We want to be sure we're filing the most appropriate charges at the outset."

Debrah said...

TO haskell--

Thanks for the KC article!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps while being deposed under oath, he might become motivated to discuss this topic.

Anonymous said...

9:50 PM

Since you put it that way . . . it is clear. Does Monetta need a sparkler up his butt or does he have one . . . a sparkler? A water bufflo is metaphor for the same sematic system of which your accute observations are proof positive . . . I know . . . does the water bufflo have a sparkler . . . probably not. Obviously, you cannot get a "moo" out of it . . . "go Duke" has a whole new meaning for these people.

Anonymous said...

Poster "mb" nailed it. Moneta would be foolish to discuss any aspect of the LAX hoax in the media. Whether to avoid impacting litigation -- or just to stay in their collective foxholes and hope it all goes away -- I doubt any Duke administrator would go on record other than in a deposition.

The Group of 88, on the other hand, seem to have no such wisdom or counsel. I look forward to more self-justification and revisionist history by that stellar collection of individuals.

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

Anonymous said...

Is Moneta a monetarist?

Anonymous said...

What would you expect him to do? He has a cushy position with a salary much larger than his meager skills should merit, and he wants to protect his position and his income. Why would he imperil his little fiefdom? To be honest? These privileged corporate types have learned that their arrogance combined with silence and stonewalling will likely protect them from any lasting damage -- except to their reputations, but who really cares about reputation?

Anonymous said...

Horrible, really, really sad. The disgusting Marxists in academia have no shame or moral compass. Really they're just common criminals, who think they are smarter then everyone else.

Debrah said...

This sounds so exciting.

A wonderful learning experience for students as well as adults.

A great location as well--Philadelphia's Center City.

KC must post about it.

Anonymous said...

I encourage everyone to turn on ESPN2 tomorrow at 2pm, and cheer on the Blue Devil laxers in their journey towards Duke's first NCAA lacrosse National Championship. The top ranked Devils take on Johns Hopkins in the second semi-final at Gillette Stadium in Boston. Record crowd expected - in excess of 50,000. Johns Hopkins is the same team Duke lost to in the NCAA Championship in '05 and '07.

Good luck boys, we're pulling for you this weekend.

Anonymous said...

Larry Monetta is suffering from a deficit of courage. Like Broadhead, when confronted with the bad actions of the faculty and the bad actions of Durham, he is "not interested" in the question. Like many people who lack moral courage, though, the suit may reveal that Moneta and the rest of Dick's team crossed the line from weakness to culpability in the frame. Putting self interest above the truth lead the Administration from passive weakness to active guilt.
The only way out is clear and complete disclosure. The only way that Duke can get rid of the stain of the Lacrosse affair is to do the one thing that the administration has most feared...have a full exploration of their actions and their knowledge in an open court under oath. Only then might we find out the truth of an administration which seems to have descended into the hell of expediency.

Anonymous said...

Frank Baum, author of "The Wizard of Oz" also publicly supported the genocide of Native Americans (he was a newspaper writer when not writing children's classics).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (5/24) Hit the nail on the head with his statement citing Moeta's deficit of courage. What a shining example Moneta, Broadhead, Wausiolek, Aleva and others (not of course excluding the Group of 88) set for those students whose parents paid handsomely for a liberal arts education which presupposes that one is taught how to think morally. Obviously at Duke those in positions of leadership think that such instruction is outdated - it is more important to practice the politics of hatred and blame. That is the example set by the administration at Duke and which they allowed, through a failure to discipline those members of the Group of 88 and their acolytes who felt emboldened to try and convict three young men and implicate the remainder of the lacrosse team as well, of something that never happened.
What I cannot understand after all this time is why Duke takes a "my bad" attitude and insists that it is now time to move on. The failure of Broadhead et al to, in a very public forum and in a very public manner, to not only apologize for their actions but to explain how such actions will not be taken in the future just reiterates why it is that Duje stands as a poster child for what is wrong with the university world these days. Students are nothing more than the wads of dollar bills that their parents part with for Duke's administration and its less than stellar liberal arts faculty (at least 88 of them) to do with as it pleases - with no real accounting. This accounts for the cavalier treatment of the parents of the lacrosse team members, Caoch Pressler, and the team itself.