At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren comments further on the peculiar Lubiano/Hardt/Wiegman defense of the Group of 88:
I strongly doubt that suggestions that the offending professors should “work as maids” or “return to the slave quarters” were “typically” offered by their critics. Indeed, in a very quick Google search, I couldn't find any instances of these two suggestions. Such disgusting insults must have been relatively rarely made by their editorial and blogger critics, if made by them at all . . .
I can’t recall one blog posting anywhere that suggested members of the Group should “work as maids” or “return to slave quarters”—and the idea that such remarks were typical is, of course, absurd. Lindgren wonders whether Social Text will run a correction on the unsubstantiated claims. I’m not holding my breath.
Lindgren also asks a not unreasonable question:
Why do these Duke professors bother to write about the Duke lacrosse hoax if they are not going to deal with their own actions honestly? If they can’t simply face the truth, they should put down their shovels and stop digging.
Recalling similar instances—the Cathy Davidson apologia, the “Shut Up and Teach” forum, the Charlie Piot conflict-of-interest essay—it mystified me why the Group and its allies have chosen to discredit themselves further through such transparently absurd defenses of their actions.
You can read Lindgren’s entire post here.
These folks know that what they did was legally irresponsible and could have been financially devastating to them. Now they are trying to "re-phrase" what they originally said without altering the original meaning of guilt because they were white statement. They are embarrassed and are trying to recover their image through lies and mistruths.
Anyone who reads these revisionists and then goes back and reads the original statement will know the truth. There is no defense of what the G88 said, just an apology. The defense wont hold up and the apology will never be spoken.
I have puzzled carefully over my liberal fellow-travelers' denial in this case.
I'm a generally pro-diversity white guy in Durham who has seen and put "pro-diversity" ideology in action many, many times in my own life. Usually, it works out better than the status quo cultural conservatism I grew up with. Rarely, it backfires and creates bad or even monstrous results (as does cultural conservatism on occasion). I don't see those results as an indictment of diversity per se, but as an inevitable result of human nature, which will find a way to corrupt even the "best" ideology.
But most progressives I speak to around here defend Lubiano et al beyond all common sense, I think, because they (unreasonably) believe that admitting a monstrous outcome in this instance is the same as declaring the inferiority of progressivism in general, which they're (reasonably) NOT willing to do.
Any ideology or institution has its partisans, I guess, especially when it feels itself to be under fire.
What a shame, though, that people don't detect their thought processes being warped by their own partisanship.
I can imagine a town where two families have been feuding over jobs, power, prestige, etc., and the adult children of one family refuse to recognize their mother's suspected alcoholism, while the other family spreads word of it to discredit their adversaries. In the end, maybe only a few people on either side are really concerned with treating the woman's alcoholism.
A few weeks ago, I mentioned that my nephew had been offered a "full-ride" scholarship to Duke Law School and asked for comments from here that I could pass along to him. Thanks to all of those -- and you know who you are -- who offered recommendations about Duke.
I just wanted to let all here know that I learned this week that my nephew has turned down the Duke "free ride" -- hopefully after absorbing some of the comments here.
KC, you may be interested to hear this: He's accepted an offer from Harvard Law School. Any advice for him there? (This question not only for KC but for any here who have info on Harvard.)
Lubiano et al control the language or so they think. Anyone else would call them liars and their verbage lies. Such impolite language is not thought to be conductive of academic discussion because everything is relative to their understanding of language and the reality it describes. But what is it that they said? It is nothing short of taking advantage of others and the difficulty of disproving a negative. If they said it was said, someone must have said it or thought it. It matters not to them that they were the ones who thought the words for themselves as if words and ideas were some sort of game that held magical trump words and concepts that they alone could wield in unassailed conversation no matter what the truth. The very fact that time and energy is used hunting the facts of their banality and these accusations are, for the main part, false, proves the point. These people represented by Lubiano never spoke to justice or fair play only guilt and gave only reasons for their thinking that were racist on their part as were their assumptions, and the administrators, well, the adminstration is terrified.
I am not especially mystified by the Groups defense of its actions as I am reasonably certain that we know only one small part of what they have actually done.
Similar to taking WWII history course and only studying the pacific theatre.
If the Group keeps defending their same ole actions, they are assuming that we may forget to ask those questions and search for the truth about the other theatres of war against Duke students they designed, enabled and launched.
I'm not forgetting to ask those questions.
Keep the focus.
Never Give Up!
I hope he did not turn down Duke to go to Harvard based on comments on the hoax case. Harvard has just as many, if not more, problems with PC faculty than Duke does.
Congrats to your nephew on HLS.
Sorry, Alum8284, but Harvard's rep beats Duke any day- just as Stanford and Yale do- and grade point avg. plus law school rep equals top job.
For all law schools, first year is KEY- GPA is the ultimate trump card, and Law Review and other honors depend upon it. (Though you can get on Law Review by being a "write on" a la Obama.) Tell him to ALWAYS take a P.C. point of view in his answers in class and on papers- with the exception of a few schools like Pepperdine, it is absolutely necessary- diversity of thought is NOT appreciated in any academic institution these days.
Some 1Ls are able to work at law firms after their first summer, but it might be better to do pro bono work at some p.c. job or take extra classes to lighten the 2L load. Remember, 1L GRADES are the ultimate determiner, and law firms will only see 1L grades (and possibly 1st semester 2L) when they offer summer clerkships.
I abhor that this is the practical approach to law school (an undergraduate education), but that's the way it is these days.
Anyone in their right mind would choose Harvard over Duke or any other law school.
Part of the problem is self-righteous denial. These folks are, on some level, unable to recognize their own faults and misdeeds as it effects the larger community.
Its symptomatic of underlying mental dysfunction.
"it mystified me why the Group and its allies have chosen to discredit themselves further through such transparently absurd defenses of their actions."
Just as robbers rob, so do evaders evade.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
At this point I'd say the G88ers have pretty much removed all doubt.
Responding to ALum8284:
Well, Harvard may have as many or more PC faculty as does Duke, but, deserved or not, the brand name is still better.
I think that some of the Group 88 have been exposed as frauds and that this has been the thrust of this blog's exposure of the rot caused by good intentions in Duke. Now the group88 supporters have to join ranks and turn a blind eye to the ongoing malfeasance and slipshod actions just to justify the choices made in hiring and promoting these self-serving self-promoting pseudo-liberals or they fear their judgment will be called into question. Mountains of irony here for the illuminati. What is sad is that for the most part so far it appears they are right in their assumptions and I think this is what is emboldens them to continue to photoshop their past actions. The Duke community will really miss clear sighted writers like Kristen at the Chronicle. It is too bad but most will take the actions recommended by the note above and spout any PC party line just to go along to get along. There is some real rottenness here.
The profs at Duke will always try to defend the indefensible. They have long careers ahead of them and they need to rehabilitate their image without giving up their angry victim-hood. Thank goodness that the internet will always keep the original truth available. These people are not being untruthful in this case. They are fundamentally dishonest in virtually everything they say and it seems...write.
The comments. So far so good. I don't see anything about the impending death or postmortem of Diva Cat. Welcome back from the dark side of nonsensical commenting. Maybe.
"If they can’t simply face the truth, they should put down their shovels and stop digging."
What Lindgren probably already understands quite well is that people like Lubiano and company have a successful history in the dishonesty and tell-of-tales business.
They are naturally drawn to this method whenever they are shown to be fools. It's a kind of denial that takes very little effort because they've been operating this way their whole adult lives---and possibly as kids. One's psychological constitution is formed then.
No doubt, these tactics are all it takes to cover for errors and bad behavior with most of their friends in the academy.
The Gang of 88 cannot accept that KC has exposed them and that they cannot create enough of a smoke screen for it all to go away.
I don't think they will ever tell the truth or stop trying to rewrite their history....no matter how idiotic they appear.
To me the highlight of Lindgren's piece from representatives of the 88's latest effort to enlighten us is:
If the Group’s expertise made its members “most competent to engage the discourses on race and gender unleashed by the inaugurating incident,” there was nothing, to my knowledge, to prevent them from doing so.
They are all so inculcated in their culture of victimization that anytime things don't go their way it must be the result of some subjugating outside agency. The bankruptcy of their own empty rhetoric- devoid of any practical application- will never be apparent to them.
It is not lost to me that the same 'liberal' mindset of 'victims rights' foisted on generations of 'minorities' is precisely what promulgated the 'inaugurating incident' (that, of course as we now know, being the false claim of an addled whore that she was raped to prevent involuntary commitment and possibly put her in the path to further enrichment from some 'white boys'). I feel sublimely confident that Precious feels no more contrition for her lies than do the 88 for theirs- and for exactly the same reasons.
And the circle is indeed unbroken.
And I know why but my psychiatrist and the CIA won't allow me tell you......
RL alum medicine '75
If you've never loved an animal, then you are inhuman. Kitty Diva was as much a part of Wonderland as anyone else.
But on to other things as you say........
The real issue is that so many posters are upset with KC because he supports Barack Obama.
They liked KC more when he was just going after the Duke Gang of 88 because they are a group whom anyone would abhor.
But just because KC's work coincided with the views of most conservatives' views on this issue doesn't mean that KC is a conservative and that he doesn't support liberal causes.
In most areas, I think KC is able to be objective......even if it goes against the liberal playbook.
I've noticed that some of the same people who have praised KC and his blog now criticize him for voicing his support of Obama in any way.
But those very same people never allow comments criticizing their harshly conservative tone on their blogs.
I'd say that some on the conservative side often display the same double standards of which they accuse their opponents.
Most unbecoming that they would chastise KC, who provided a fertile and intelligent forum for them for so long.
I am deeply, deeply disappointed in my former professors Jan Radway, Frank Lentricchia, and most especially, Grant Farred, who went out of his way to defend me against a racist comment when I was an undergrad.
Until some contrition is shown, I will be disappointed with Duke. Don't get me started on Brodhead.
The egregious lack of respect for students shown by my professors calls into question everything i learned from them--
as a former journalist, I ALWAYS consider the source.
I sincerely wish they would consider how this is affecting non-lacrosse players, and actual rape victims.
The creep is at it again.
Stalking KC and trying to make excuses for the idiotic trio from the Gang of 88.
"Re:harmonizer" obviously suffers from the same malady as does Duke's infamous gang.
And he never stops digging.
American Conservatives and free market proponents like myself like to see hard-working Americans of all races and backgrounds prosper. As one of those free-market proponents, I would not wish Lubiano et al to go backward, but rather, to move upward.
However, Lubiano is making a slur on "maids" and other hard-working folks. Most manual laborers are honest, decent people. And frankly, I would prefer their company to that of the prevaricators of the 88. And I wouldn't hire any of the 88, should I need manual labor, because it would always either be perpetually forthcoming, or I'd feel the need to follow behind them to make sure they did an honest job; I'd rather hire an inexperienced 16 year old kid who shows some gumption and who has the appearance of integrity.
I hope that someone will please ask Lubiano and her friends to stop slurring those people who do manual work for a living; I do manual work, too, and I don't appreciate being put in Lubiano's slur-list.
Please KC, do a recap on the fraudulent hoaxster from today's N&O "Arts and Living" story.
The N&O insists upon elevating this chicken circuit greaser over and over again.
Read this story---always by J. Peder Zane---and it will nauseate anyone who remembers anything about Tyson's vile role in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
It seems he's in the N&O almost every week and if Tyson weren't married, I think Zane might ask him for his hand. Zane is obsessed with this creepy Tim Tyson.
Tyson's whole existence seems to be built on "race" and an episode that took place when he was a kid. He's milked it into books which are cheap redux versions of tales long written by others--and better.
Take notice, because this little tidbit tells the story of this clown: He chooses to live in Chapel Hill. Not Durham, where most of the "race troubles" exist and where he showed up on Buchanan Blvd. waddling around under "castrate" signs like an inciteful idiot.
Like his buddies of the Gang of 88 who mostly choose to live outside Durham---many around the placid little historic town of Hillsborough---Tyson lives in Chapel Hill.......where it's "safe".
Not very sporting and not very courageous for such a big man on the "race campus of life".
What a disgusting fraud.
Just like his Preacher Daddy.
Here's a guest column from the H-S.
This kind of inflammatory and exaggerated trash is always given a prominent place in the news whenever the area "race business" needs a fresh infusion.
No matter that there's really nothing to prompt this emotional rehashing of tales. You can see how this guy tries to minimize the reality of why the black community has such problems.
And no matter that the victims of late have been white....at the hands of black perpetrators.
Some race hustler is always on hand to reach back into history......as if the black community bears no responsibility for the challenges of today.
Many can't give up their addiction to the "race business". It's all they know and it's also an easy life for them.
I have grown to despise such childish writing as this:
Johnathan Brunson: What is a black life worth in America?
May 17, 2008
As a young boy in elementary school, I remember the teacher asking the class who would like to lead the pledge of Allegiance. I, along with classmates, fought for the opportunity to get in front of the class to lead the Pledge. Even though the student leading only got half of a sentence out alone before the class joined in, we all wanted the chance to lead our classmates.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Being a young boy, I wholeheartedly believed in the words "justice for all." But that changed after I grew into a man. While majoring in political science in college, I arrived at the point of critical thinking where internally I asked myself the question: "What is a black life worth in America?"
1999 -- Amadou Bailo Diallo, a West African immigrant, was standing in the vestibule of his Bronx home. Armed with a beeper, wallet (which was mistaken as a gun) and keys, this man was shot 19 times by four white police officers who fired their weapons 41 times. The officers claimed the shooting was a "horrible -- yet reasonable -- accident, not a murder." As a reward for their carelessness, all four officers were acquitted.
Liberty and justice for all?
2000 -- Patrick Dorismond, the father of two young girls, was a security guard who hoped to one day become a cop. He was confronted by an undercover officer outside of a bar where he had gone with a friend after working a 3-11 p.m. shift. He was shot and killed after the officer assumed he was a drug dealer.
Liberty and justice for all?
2001 -- Timothy Thomas, an unarmed black teenager was shot by a white police officer in Cincinnati while fleeing. He had 14 outstanding warrants (12 for traffic violations, such as not wearing a seat belt) and two were for running away from police. The cop claimed he feared for his life and saw Thomas reach for something in his waist area -- the same statement the four officers made when Diallo reached for his wallet. As you might have guessed, there was no weapon found on Thomas.
Liberty and justice for all?
2006 -- Sean Bell, a father just hours away from becoming a husband, was shot and killed in a flurry of 50 bullets. Two of his friends were shot, but survived. No weapons were found on the three men or in the car. All were unarmed.
Liberty and justice for all?
2008 -- After Eve Carson, a white, female student at UNC, was shot and killed, allegedly by two young black males, UNC Chancellor James Moeser stated: "We're all in a state of shock. We are all hurting. We are all grief-stricken, stunned. This university needs an enormous group hug. It's OK to cry. It's OK to be filled with grief."
When he said, "We," who exactly was he referring to? White America? When he stated we are in a state of shock, did shock come as a result of a white life being lost? How shocked were the American people collectively when these black men lost their lives to violence?
Don't get me wrong, it hurt me to my heart when I heard about Carson losing her life to violence, but I hurt in general for anyone losing their life to any form of violence, regardless of race or gender.
When was the last time races collectively grieved together? What comes to my mind was 9/11 when terrorists ran planes into the twin towers and everyone on those planes lost their lives, regardless of race. Another more recent time was during the Virginia Tech shooting when the victims of violence came in many colors. Even though commercials showed different people crying together, did we all actually cry together? Or did the cameras point toward a diverse array of people mourning within the same physical setting?
My girlfriend and I had a conversation pertaining to race. She said blacks are the only race in which you hear about police mistakenly killing. Her comment made me reflect on a previous conversation I had with an African woman who has an adult son my age. She said to me: "When I moved from Africa to America, I learned quickly what black males have to go through. You have no criminal record, are writing your first book, but none of that matters if a police officer pulls you over. If a police officer pulls you over for a broken taillight and ends up shooting you because he claimed you were a threat, that police officer's reason is justified."
There was a time when black men were set on fire, castrated and lynched (watch the movie "Great Debaters" for reference) and whites watched with a sense of barbaric joy, rather than actual grief. After this public display of brutality, whites went on their merry way and were acquitted. Sadly, history does have a tendency to repeat itself.
Rest in peace, Emmett Till.
Johnathan Brunson will be releasing his first book titled "Mirroring Society" in mid-June. You can pre-order a copy at www.johnathanbrunson.com.
The creep is at it again.
Stalking KC and trying to make excuses for the idiotic trio from the Gang of 88.
"Re:harmonizer" obviously suffers from the same malady as does Duke's infamous gang.
And he never stops digging.
5/17/08 5:28 PM
Thanks for birddogging reharmonizer's latest, because reharmonizer is such a great repository of L'hoax commentary. In this case, he linked us to john-in-carolina who in turned linked us to the Sokal Hoax of 1996 in the same magazine. (I realize KC has touched on the Sokal Hoax in connection with the latest ... offering by Hardt, Lubiano, and Weigman, too, but it was from the above-cited chain of references that I got this idea.)
According to JiC's quote from Wikipedia:
The Sokal affair (also Sokal's hoax) was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University).
In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."
Isn't the recent publication of the H.L.W. piece a new "Sokal Hoax"? It seems to fit the criteria. Let's see if a similarly worded description would make sense:
The HLW affair (also HLW's hoax) was a hoax by scam artists H. L. and W. perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University).
In 1996, H., L., and W., professors of academic fraud at Duke University, submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would ... publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."
Do we have a winner? If so, can someone reading this please contact Wikipedia and urge that its "Sokal Hoax Article" be linked to a new entry about the "H.L.W. Hoax Article"?
Initially, I, too, supported Obama, both intellectually and financially. I was impressed with his speech at the DNC, his first book, and his stance on the Duke Hoax. I am, by and large, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I have changed my point of view regarding Obama, for a variety of reasons. I DO NOT think any less of K.C. because of his continued support of Obama. I wish that K.C. could get Obama to make a statement TODAY, now that he is the leading Democratic candidate, about the HOAX. I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama, given his comment about Jena, Louisiana, would NOT support a DOJ investigation of civil rights abuses in the DUKE HOAX- he is a political animal and cannot afford to alienate the race baiters in his party- at least, that is my opinion at the current moment.
I would ask that K.C. apply his prodigious powers of analysis to what Obama SAYS and what Obama DOES. I will happily remain open-minded until then, but I do not think that Senator Obama is authentic- rather the Mayzie Bird, not Horton the Elephant!
Has anyone else noticed that "faux juridical" is a term newly fabricated by the Sokal Three? See this google search.
If they don't like "faux juridicalism", I invite them to try the real thing. This invitation will be refused because these people are just smart enough to fear their intellectual betters, and stay far away from any open forum where they will be exposed as the "faux scholars" that they are.
The big sin of the Rev Wright is he pointed out that the "O" is just another politician. So you are correct in your switch. Will KC post my comment? My guess,70% no. This blog now belongs to Diva Kat, Diva Debrah & Diva KC in that order.
I find the academy horrid in its behavior. No they are not working as "maid" or living in the "slave quarters." They are the "academic" wing of the very active lynch-mob mentality that enveloped Durham. It was already in extent. Enough so as to give pause and thought as to a reasonable excuse for Mr. Nifong's inexcusable behavior. What else could Nifong have done given the pre-existence of this group's mind-set. It would have taken an extraordinary man to stand up to these radical professors. Nifong, a life long government worker, did not have such fortitude, but what were his motives . . . a lack of personal integrity or naked ambition or just fear of what these people would do to him or his career. This fear of these wretched academics is very much a part of the Duke administration so much so that thinking about right or wrong is out the window with them and never to be considered. It takes the force and rule of law to make these people function correctly. These people did not realize they were to represent all of Duke and are Duke and neither they nor the administration who participated in this arrogance of racial and political correctness were up to the job. I cannot put into words what I think about them. They are not profiles in courage. Whatever their academic pedigree, they are something else . . . something other than what they should be or were hired to be.
"I feel sublimely confident that Precious feels no more contrition for her lies than do the 88 for theirs- and for exactly the same reasons."
My latest to reharmonizer:
You say: "It’s a pattern I’ve noted before and will likely note again, since I think it’s important. There’s a sense of proportion to the comments and criticisms that come from people who were on campus as the case unfolded, even those who are angry, disappointed, or disgusted that so much of the community turned on the lacrosse team. It seems to me that that sense of proportion is woefully lacking in the average blog hooligan.
I hope I can help you understand the source of the divide between modern campus-dwellers and those of us who finished our undergraduate degrees 25-plus years ago.
I am told that if you drop a frog in a pan of boiling water it will immediately leap out, but if you put the frog in a pan of tepid water and gradually raise the temperature, the frog will stay in the pan until it is boiled to death.
As you are aware, people like those in the Group of 88 (which, btw, is a term they, not we, created), have stated publicly their goals of "transforming the educational experience" through a Gramscian "long march through through the institutions". (We will re-visit this when we discuss your favored TNI in a few days.)
Basically, they have been "turning up the heat" on the sex/class/race pan for many years now. When we "blog hooligans" were in college, the temperature was a balmy 80-degrees. At Duke, 2006, it was 200. The G88's ad raised the temperature to "only" 220, but that created two different reactions. To the campus-dwellers accustomed to 200, the ad was, as you yourself put it, only "a blip" -- something hardly to be noticed, and certainly not unexpected. To those of us who remember a different campus clime, it was the equivalent of being a frog dropped into a pan of boiling water.
(The educational system starts turning up the temperature early, as I am learning with my children. Last year, both my 5th grader and my 9th grader were required to read "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- apparently my 5th grader will be reading it again in three years, just to be sure she hasn't forgotten the lesson. And the lesson is...? I had to argue with them before persuading them (perhaps) that the book was fiction. They each said their teachers were insisting it was non-fiction!)
Anyway, think of the book burnings at German universities in 1934. How many university professors objected to that? But to those Germans who had been university students 30 years earlier and had had little contact with academia since, what a shock it was.
Likewise, just as book burnings would be impossible for a college-educated German to imagine on his 1904 campus, so would the actions of the G88 be for a college-educated American to imagine on his 1976 campus.
We outside frogs ("frog hooligans"?) see the pan is boiling and are shouting warnings to our brethren to get out.
"Basically, they have been "turning up the heat" on the sex/class/race pan for many years now. When we "blog hooligans" were in college, the temperature was a balmy 80-degrees. At Duke, 2006, it was 200. The G88's ad raised the temperature to "only" 220, but that created two different reactions. To the campus-dwellers accustomed to 200, the ad was, as you yourself put it, only "a blip" -- something hardly to be noticed, and certainly not unexpected. To those of us who remember a different campus clime, it was the equivalent of being a frog dropped into a pan of boiling water."
"We outside frogs ("frog hooligans"?) see the pan is boiling and are shouting warnings to our brethren to get out."
Excellent analogy, RRH.
Thanks Texas Mom (Good Luck, Spurs!),
Did you really like "frog hooligans"? I didn't think much of it when I wrote it, but I think I'm starting to warm to the appellation. I still like "KC's Sunshine Band", too, but "frog hooligans" is both broader and invites an inquiry that will allow us to explain the analogy about the frogs inside and outside of the pan.
I am an authority figure at a very prestigious university in a small southern town. My very public and wrong rush to judgement against students at my own university cannot be scrutinized or criticized because someone, somewhere (I cannot reveal where because I want to protect their privacy) called me a poopyhead."
Post a Comment