Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Words To "Stand By"

As noted below, when asked about his inflammatory remarks on the case, anti-lacrosse extremist Tim Tyson recently announced, "I stand by every word of it." Four clips of the words that Tyson stands by, in his own voice, are below.

First, Tyson recalled his time in the potbangers' March 25, 2006 candlelight vigil, outside the lacrosse captains' house. His participation in this event almost certainly violated Duke's anti-harassment code; no record exists that he was ever punished for his actions.

Then, Tyson lionized the false accuser, Crystal Mangum. (The photo in the below came from the same evening--march 25, 2006--that Tyson participated in a candelight vigil for Mangum outside the lacrosse players' house. Earlier that day, Mangum had gone to UNC Hospital unsuccessfully trying to get prescription medication for the pain she claimed her "attackers" had inflicted upon her.)

Then, Tyson outlined a remarkable conception of due process and civil liberties, as he hailed the leadership of Richard Brodhead.

Finally, Tyson played to Durham's race-baiting mob.

Reflecting on all these statements earlier this year, Tyson congratulated himself "that a person as impassioned and opinionated as me would have the presence of mind to consistently remind people to withhold judgment."


Debrah said...


I had no idea all this was caught on tape.

Anonymous said...

Great guy! No doubt, he represents everything that Brodhead and Steel want for Duke University.

One Spook said...

I don't know what I can add to the excellent comments that have already been made about Tyson, a charlatan who surely is a Cardinal in the Church of Race-Baiting.

Reading his words is unpleasant enough, but hearing them is deeply disturbing --- the best word to describe this craven individual is "unctuous."

Tyson is a modern day man who is woefully trapped in "a civilization gone with the wind," equally as inacurate and false as Margaret Mitchell's own romantic tale of the old south.

What fools like Tyson never seem to realize is that by perpetuating the theme of victim hood among the very people they purport to "help," they in fact, hurt them and "keep them in their place" in order to make a living for themselves. Tyson's livelihood is munchausen syndrome by proxy on an entire class of people.

And, hearing his most smarmy praise of Brodhead, who runs the "Big House" where Tyson's check is signed, is disgusting almost beyond belief.

One Spook

Gary Packwood said...

Tyson played to Durham's race-baiting mob (last video)
Tyson final words are from James Baldwin (Stranger in the Village-1999). Baldwin said 'we are trapped in history and history is trapped in us' presumably with respect to his visit as a black man to a Swiss village.

I disagree with Baldwin. In my view, people are only trapped in history in that they can't change the past.

Tyson however is trying to resurrect the past right in the middle of the undergraduate population at Duke University and HE is trapped in a modern world of his own making that has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Resurrections must be acceptable scholarship in a church affiliated university.

Is he tenured?

Anonymous said...

The Duke alumni should withhold all further donations until the University cans his ass, along with at least a quarter of the infamous 88.

Anonymous said...

Tyson himself made a moral miscalculation--he is so caught up in the victimization perception that he has completely lost touch with reality. He put his own "wisdom" on the line when he praised the man that he has a "lot of faith in".
Morally bankrupt.
His take is similar to that of Grant Farred on voter registration. I can't find any comments by Farred that there was a problem with voter registration at NCCU. Could it be that there is a double standard for historically black school voter registration and historically white school voter registration?
I also continue to love that comment about the two dancers being "someone's sweetheart". To be sure, CGM was someone's sweetheart. A lot of someone's sweethearts. The "trick" was, they had to pay to be her sweetheart and I'm not talking about her dancing ability (though that term has sometimes been applied to "dancing")

james conrad said...

Gee Wiz, it appears colleges today hire on the basis of politics, the idea that schools charge students to be lectured by buffoons like this is nuts. The sad part is, he's not alone.

Anonymous said...

Is Tyson a Communist?

W. R. Chambers said...

My attempt to transcribe the first video:

Interviewer: You were one of those who took part in the vigil over the weekend in front of the house where the alleged rape took place. Why were you there?

Tyson: Well, I was there as a teacher. These young men have had available to them the best liberal arts education that money can buy and they've yet failed somehow to absorb any of its lessons and so I guess I was there really because the women in that house were somebody's daughter and somebody's sister and somebody's sweetheart and I think that we have to come together as a community and say that this is unacceptable on a number of different levels.


"I was there as a teacher" might be an apt title for an essay or book about how certain professors used the events of the Duke case to teach their understanding of cultural reality.

Anonymous said...

Have his recent actions placed him outside the settlement box?

Anonymous said...

Tyson is an especially repulsive gasbag. What hubris to recreate his past... despite the photographic evidence. Like Mangum, Nifong, Gottlieb, Halloway, Lubiano, and others, Tyson believes he can lie his way through any situation... and expects that no one will ever dare call his hand with the facts.

Tyson should be shown the door at Duke... but with Brodhead in charge... he will probably be presented with Duke's highest awards.

Anonymous said...

This reinforces why those parents who are willing to spend vast sums to educate their offsrping at Duke should think loing and hard as to whether that it is a wise investment of their monies.

Anonymous said...

The line that is really over the top for me was, "The spirit of the lynch mob was in the house that night." Let's get real....this was an ill advised party thrown by college athletes who were interested in getting drunk and checking out some strippers.

The one recurring theme that has really surprised and angered me most about the entire lacrosse foasco is the continuing refusal of anyone to admit they were wrong. Except for the players themselves and a very timid Broadhead, no one has admitted a mistake.

Why people like Tyson (and at least 87 others) can't simply admit their mistake is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

cks wrote:

"This reinforces why those parents who are willing to spend vast sums to educate their offsrping at Duke should think loing and hard as to whether that it is a wise investment of their monies."

Frankly, it's comments like this that show an incredible lack of perspective, let alone knowledge, about Duke. Does anyone think that Duke is actually run by a few loony professors? If you do, you are creating your own version of a metanarrative, one where Duke is actually a dangerous place for wealthy white male athletes. In reality, Duke is actually quite conservative in comparison with other schools with similar academic standards. As just one example,the Campus Cultural Initiative (CCI), the pet project of the loonies, which would potentially have instituted "cultural sensitivity" classes and de-emphasized big time athletics, has died as a result of intense opposition from students and the athletics department. Meanwhile, Duke's commitment to Division 1 athletics has actually increased since the lacrosse fiasco.

Bottom line: a few vignettes in no way paint a picture of Duke that is even remotely accurate.

Anonymous said...

From One Spook at 9:49:

"What fools like Tyson never seem to realize is that by perpetuating the theme of victim hood among the very people they purport to "help," they in fact, hurt them ..."

I disagree that people like Tyson do not realize this. I think many of them realize it perfectly well. After all, if they actually did help the people they purport to help, the Tysons of the world would lose the rationale for their existence.

Debrah said...

Like the Gang of 88 and the waddling Tyson, other "leaders" in Durham also seem to profit by NOT doing their jobs properly:

Baker and Gray receive raises

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
Sep 16, 2008

DURHAM -- For the second year in a row, former city manager and now City Attorney Patrick Baker has received a 3 percent pay raise from elected official.

The decision, ratified Monday night in a unanimous City Council vote, pushes Baker's annual paycheck to $170,657. The raise will take affect on Jan. 1, Mayor Bill Bell said.

Council members in the same vote also award City Clerk Ann Gray a 4 percent raise. She will receive $98,266 as of Jan. 1.

Bell said the decision on the raises followed closed-door evaluations by the council of both senior officials. Baker and Gray occupy two of the only three positions in Durham government that the council fills directly.

The third is the city manager's job. Baker's replacement in that post, City Manager Tom Bonfield, only started work on Aug. 11. His starting salary was $178,000 annually.

Baker's raise in 2007 trailed 5 percent awards to Gray and former City Attorney Henry Blinder. The decision last year offered an early signal that he might not continue as manager for long. In 2006, the council gave him 5 percent.

Bell said this year's evaluation of Baker was for his role as former city manager. Baker took over as city attorney the same day Bonfield arrived.

Anonymous said...

I have listened to the statements, and they are unsufferably self-righteous. The man is a gasbag of the highest order, and if this is what parents spend $50K for a year at Duke, then I pity them.

By the way, there is nothing -- nothing -- in ANY of his statements that even hints that these charges might not be true. He believed the big lie because he wanted to believe it. What an ass.

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson is right . . . only a little more fiercely than usual. One of Tyson's remarks in reference to the team was "utterly blind." Unwitingly, this statement would seem to refer to Tyson's own perception of events than mark any perceptions of the lacrosse team. Do the Duke pomposities ever reflect on themselves. Interestingly, the behavior of the faculty was a worse behavior than the behavior with which they accused the lacrosse team. Like Henry II, will no one bring any of them to justice? Of course, what is meant by this statement has to do with this awful faculty being disciplined by anyone at all.

Debrah said...

This is the forum where Tyson was confronted by many commenters back in May.

Some will remember this one.

He simply fled! LOL!

I almost break out in hives when I hear him talking about Mangum with that oily voice of his.

This was my response to it on that forum.

The Diva says:

"Timothy Tyson opines with the insidious drawl of year-old molasses left uncovered in grandma's pantry:

Crystal Mangum was 'somebody’s daughter and somebody’s sister and somebody’s mother and somebody’s sweetheart'.


With solid DNA evidence that she was sporting undergarments with the week-old dried semen of at least 5 different men---(none of whom were Duke lacrosse players)---and with more semen found in her vaginal and anal cavities from yet other men---(none of whom were Duke lacrosse players)---I think it might be fair to say that she was.......

.......'somebody's sweetheart'.

The truth about Tyson in its entirety was never revealed in the print edition of the N&O from that interview.

Just the usual short, sanitized version where his responses weren't challenged as they were in the comment section of the blog.

Too bad.

If more of the public could get a glimpse of what is on the blogs, there's no way Tyson could continue with his tired charade.

It's important to remember that most people know few intricacies of the behavior of slugs like Tyson.

It really should be a mission to make sure that they do.

Anonymous said...

Duke 1965 forgets one thing: This is the first time in the history of American higher education that a university's leadership conspired with crooked police and prosecutors to frame students for crimes that never occurred.

It was the Duke leadership that cowered before the G88 and the Tim Tysons of the faculty. Indeed, Duke IS being run by a "few loony professors." Certainly, the "sane" professors were not permitted even to protest this idiocy; those that did quickly were attacked.

Duke 1965 also forgets that many of the lacrosse families were Duke University through and through. I have come to know one family that had several generations having gone to Duke, but in one fell swoop, Brodhead, Steel, and Burness, and those "loony professors" have driven this family away from Duke -- permanently. Other lacrosse families were in the same boat.

The leadership at Duke told these families: We don't care if you love Duke; we hate you and you and your sons can go to hell.

Tim G said...


Until one of these loonies is punished by Duke, then it IS being run by them, not the administration. After all, "Tyson: Well, I was there as a teacher."

Duke may have many fine progran, many fine teachers, and fine athletic progarms, and you can get a fine education in most of its programs, but it is lousy school.

Chris Halkides said...

I happened to sit next to District Attorney Ben David at breakfast today, and I overheard him say that 200 people were signed up for Dr. Tyson’s course already. He also spoke at length about the McIver shooting, which was a bigger deal than I realized. Mr. David also mentioned that his mother lived close to the lacrosse captains’ house. Mr. David was instrumental in bringing Dr. Tyson to Wilmington. In the past I have respected Mr. David, but I may have to reevaluate.

One beef I have with Dr. Tyson is that he and the 88 were nowhere to be found at the other twenty stripper parties at Duke that year. That makes his protestations about how terrible it was to host this party sound inconsistent and self-serving.


Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson,

I haven't forgotten anything. There's no question that the lacrosse hoax was devastating to the lacrosse players and their families. However, to use that incident to imply that the radical left has won the PC Culture War at Duke simply defies reality. From some of the comments by DIW posters, one would think that the average Duke student is subjected to cultural sensitivity training, forced to live with gay roomates to improve their "cultural awareness", and taught by incompetent professors who constantly spout a radical agenda in class. And if you're a white male athlete, look out!! You may be arrested at any moment for a crime which never occurred, and the administration will promptly throw you under the bus!!

If you want to believe that this is the experience of a typical Duke student, be my guest. However, that's just another metanarrative. If the lacrosse hoax has taught us anything, it should be to avoid metanarratives, and instead to look at reality. You might want to visit the Duke campus, walk around a bit, and talk to a number of current Duke students about their real-world experience. The actual world of a current Duke student might be an inconvenient truth for people who want to believe that Duke has been overrun by the radical left.

Anonymous said...


"With solid DNA evidence that she was sporting undergarments with the week-old dried semen of at least 5 different men---(none of whom were Duke lacrosse players)---and with more semen found in her vaginal and anal cavities from yet other men---(none of whom were Duke lacrosse players)---I think it might be fair to say that she was.......

.......'somebody's sweetheart'."

Let's not forget that the Duke leadership knowingly supported this woman instead of taking a neutral position, much less defending their own students.

Of course Chairman Steel ended up with a senior appointment with the Treasury department and now is the CEO at Wachovia. He has some authority on how to melt down institutional value.

Let's also not forget that he supports Brodhead who quite actively promoted and acknowledged Klan of 88 members and "something happened" student supporters into leadership/award positions.

As such, Duke1965's remarks cannot be fully supported. Put another way, who among the leadership DID support the boys, or even the rule of law, and refute/reject the loons? The fact is that none of them did.

Duke remains a risky environment on many levels. We no longer give money. We haven't attended any alumni reunions since the hoax. Duke will not be mentioned in our estate planning documents.

Debrah said...

TO 12:35 PM--

Then why was it allowed to happen in this one case?

Then why has there been no open backlash toward Brodhead, the administration, and the Gang of 88?

Yes, there is strident rhetoric among many who have been horrified by what occurred at Duke in the Spring of 2006---(and continues to be glossed over even now!)---but you and no one else can dismiss the facts.

If other faculty members are so very different, then how can they acquiesce and participate in such an environment that cultivated and nurtured the well-documented mob mentality?

Anonymous said...

I saw more of the "spirit of the lynch mob" in the chanting throng gathered outside the Buchanan house in the middle of the night.

Tyson's remarks did nothing but inflame the community and he must accept responsibility for doing his utmost to stoke the flames of racial hatreds.

With Tyson's kind of help, our country will never be color blind.

Anonymous said...


The facts of the lacrosse case are well known, and I'm certainly not dismissing those facts. I'm simply questioning statements made on this board about the environment at Duke today, and in particular whether Duke is actually a risky place to attend school, as several posters have noted......

Let me put it a different way: if you had a college-age son who badly wanted to go to Duke, would you permit him to go? If not, why not?

Anonymous said...

OK, I can agree with Duke 1965 on that. My sense is that the leadership at Duke would LOVE to do all those things you listed, but that the students generally have too much sense.

Unfortunately, the kids there have more good sense than many of the adults who make the rules!

One Spook said...

njnp writes @ 3:08 PM

"As such, Duke1965's remarks cannot be fully supported."

Agree, but I also support Duke1965's view that "However, that's just another metanarrative. If the lacrosse hoax has taught us anything, it should be to avoid metanarratives, and instead to look at reality."

And, at the risk of presuming the thoughts of Duke1965, I think he was responding to what are all to often, very shrill and hyperbolic comments by Bill Anderson.

No one can argue with Bill's dedication and commitment to justice in this case nor his very accurate early analysis of the case. But my sense of a good deal of Bill's commentary is that it is often a bit over the top and redolent of a "Chicken Little" view of the sky falling at Duke.

So allow me to offer another "reality" perspective from having spent over 30 years in association with tough business people who make "Chairman Steel" look like the tuba player in a Salvation Army Band. And, do not be too quick to assume that his selection as CEO of Wachovia is a negative for that company, folks ... he may just be the type of guy who is tough enough and talented enough to fix it.

People like Steel (and probably others on Duke's "Executive Committee") are smart, pragmatic, tough survivors. Never underestimate them. They play for keeps and tend not to lose sight of the BIG picture and the ultimate goal --- helping Duke prosper, make money, and succeed as an institution. These guys are not ideologues. They hire ideologues like Brodhead as useful idiots to do their bidding and give Duke some nice liberal bona fides, which of course, is par for the course for institutions that are Ivy-wanabies.

For the most part, these big guys do not care at all about the Angry Studies crowd and whether they gain departmental status, get raises, resources, control hiring, and receive additional recognition, etc. etc. To the pragmatic, Angry Studies are a necessary evil.

They view the existence of such departments as a "cost of doing business" and nothing else. It "fills the square" of "diversity" and other measures necessary for a progressive, modern university. To the big boys, as long as the existence of these morons at Duke keeps the natives of Durham from burning down their precious University, their presence is worth the cost. It is certainly a lot cheaper than stationing 5,000 armed guards around the campus 24/7.

Smart university boards figured this out after the riots of the late 60s and early 70s. They are fully aware that the race baiters are nothing more than protection rackets of old. This is also why they employee over 15,000 Durham residents to work in the laundry at Duke Medical, mow lawns, mop floors, toil in the kitchen and cafeteria, and as rent-a-cops in Duke "Security" (a REAL oxymoron!).

And they really don't care whether the liberal arts discipline at Duke goes to hell in a hand basket, either, and why? Liberal Arts makes NO money. Hard sciences, engineering, and medicine do make money. They ARE concerned about those areas. And that is why Tara Levicy was most certainly "quietly urged" to leave Duke Medical with a nice reference.

And, look at the results, even after this terrible incident: Duke's endowment is growing; they moved up in major Rankings this year; attendance and applications are at an all-time high, and in a couple of years, all of the students who were enrolled during the lacrosse hoax will be gone. Life is good.

The silence of the "other faculty" at Duke is explainable under this analysis as well. I think many in the other faculty are aware, at some level, of the points I have made above. Apart from speaking up for the rights of students, which a few eventually did, I believe that the "sane, real" faculty at Duke could see no benefit in engaging the Angry Studies crowd --- professors and "colleagues" they do not even remotely consider as equals or as any threat to their departments or study.

And, lest you think these big guys don't understand power, ask yourself why North Carolina's Senators and the US Department of Justice wouldn't touch this issue.

These big guys know power and they know how to cut losses. The settlement with the three indicted players was chump change to them compared to the losses and damage to the Duke Brand Name they would have suffered in a prolonged court battle (which they knew they would lose) against people with resources who can afford top-shelf legal counsel.

To them, the civil suit is an easier battle. As you can see, they will stall, delay discovery, place the blame on others, and make prolonged arguments on the legal (not factual) issues in the case. The legal arguments of the plaintiffs, particularly the "conspiracy theory" is far from settled law. And, apart from this blog, few will notice their machinations, and they know this fact. If they see they are losing for certain, they will offer up a few sacrificial lambs (probably not Brodhead), or settle and be done with it.

Do not assume these big boys are fools ... they wouldn't be where they are if they were incompetant --- and they have contacts and "friends" from Heaven to Hell.

So, to quote Duke1965, "look at reality."

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Imagine my joy when reading the Sept.-Oct. Duke magazine tonight when I came across the marketing insert for “2009 Educational Adventures for Duke Alumni and Friends”. One may guess that not enough alumni attended last year, so they are extending their reach to friends.

Upon review, I must say I was disappointed. Duke University continues to shock the system yet again. “Truth-in-Advertising” continues to be a lost concept to those intellectuals on campus who think lofty thoughts.

The beautiful brochure promotes trips such as the following: “Costa Rica Eco Explorer”, “Exotic North India”, “The Blue Voyage: Turkey & the Turquoise Coast” and even a “Multi-Sport Adventure in Idaho”. These range in cost from $1,899 to $6,995 per person.

There is a $350 “Duke Marine Lab Weekend”. Given the cost, one must infer that the $350 Marine Lab Weekend only includes a graduate assistant and not any "stellar" faculty.

The cover speaks of “Extraordinary Destinations” and “Stellar Faculty on Board”. Right up front the piece promises that “your passport to learning…” features “…Duke faculty or expert guides”. Now that is damn funny. The Duke faculty is characterized as “stellar” yet the lowly guides are noted as “experts”. One wonders what the SAT scores for the guides were, where they went to college and how much was spent to earn their degrees.

I was reminded of the same marketing piece delivered last year and chuckled as I imagined someone paying all of that money and ending up around a camp fire being lectured by one of the loony faculty about race/gender/class warfare. You see some of the faculty hosts last year were Klan of 88 frauds. Simpletons might consider that promotional piece as fraudulent since the faculty member’s area of expertise was not disclosed in any meaningful way.

Well Duke managed to out do itself this year. How so, you may ask? Well not one “stellar”, or otherwise, faculty member is listed in the brochure. It appears one must go pot luck and hope for the best. Can you imagine spending over $30,000 to take you family of four on a trip of a lifetime only to end up with a fraudulent Klan of 88 being the faculty host?

Interestingly, the fine print on the bottom of the last page states that “Cost is per person and does not include airfare, unless noted. All itineraries and prices are subject to change.” This language suggests that Duke may have had problems in prior years with the lack of disclosure of the total costs associated with these educational adventures.

Where is the transparency? Where is the honesty? What happened to ethics? Duke is morally bankrupt.

Debrah said...

Checking out Wonderland in the midnight hour, I felt compelled to revisit, especially, the last audio/video that KC posted of Tyson.

You really have to do a double and a triple-take.

Just to make sure that this is not some unidentified moron that someone pulled off the street for an interview somewhere.

We can reiterate how low-rent and retro Tyson is, but you really must listen to this tape and gasp!.....that this man is teaching anything at an elite university.

I mean, just listen to what he's saying.

He's such a monumental dumba$$.

Just a cretin.

Anonymous said...

One Spook wrote: "Tyson's livelihood is munchausen syndrome by proxy on an entire class of people."



Duke1965, I would suggest to you that a cancer that affects multiple systems but does not afflict the heart or the lungs is still a dangerous cancer. Moreover, left unchecked, the heart and lungs are in grave peril, and to claim their daily function is totally unaffected is to ignore the nature of cancers. I think Duke has reasonably tolerated a bit of chemo, but we'll have to wait to see if the treatment took. Based on what has happened thus far on campus, my prognosis is not optimistic.


I hate to dust off an old line, but here goes: I liked Tyson's book "Blood Done Signed My Name" better when it was called, "To Kill a Mockingbird." It is also ironic that in real life Tyson ended up with the role of Walter Cunningham, Sr. To continue the analogy, I always imagined that a small portion of Nifong's megalomania related to his desire to walk out of the courtroom after the verdict with all of his people rising as one.


MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Duke1965 reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's classic Holy Grail movie where he has all his limbs severed in a battle with another knight and as he lays immobile he yells at the victorious knight who is sheathing his sword and walking away,

"It's only a flesh wound!"

PC and angry studies have gotten to be a significant problem. KC has been and continues to be instrumental in exposing this problem along with the school admin's inability to control the angry and bigoted mob. Denying this is not going to help. We need cool, rational, and compassionate heads to see the problem clearly and find ways to bring an open environment back to our centers for higher learning. At this point the inmates are running the asylum.

I suppose if you agree with the rantings of the inmates you might not care so much.

Debrah said...

Duke 1965 asks:

" If you had a college-age son who badly wanted to go to Duke, would you permit him to go? If not, why not?"

That's a good question for all commenters to consider.

First, I have made the decision not to have children.

Not because I don't like them.

I do.

I just don't want that particular responsibility.

And they like me a lot simply because I always talk with them as if they are adults.

I engage them and challenge them. They like that.

As a parent, I would be somewhat of a strict disciplinarian. If I decided that Duke University was not the place for my offspring, that would be the end of the story.

The father of my child and, presumably, my fairy tale husband---who, most certainly, would be the one to foot the tuition fees, etc....(and not the Diva!)--- would also be urged by me to steer the son toward another university....of his choice.

In short, after the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, I would not consider the school an appealing choice for a young man or a young woman.

Thanks to KC, we know far too much about some of the people who "teach" there.

One Spook said...

kilgore @ 7:11 AM writes:

"PC and angry studies have gotten to be a significant problem."


"I suppose if you agree with the rantings of the inmates you might not care so much."

A "significant problem" ... by what measure and on what basis? I would submit that, by any logical measure of general well-being and success for a university, Duke looks very healthy.

I think that the second supposition quoted above is ridiculous and counter-productive. I don't believe there is a single regular contributor to this Blog who would "agree with the rantings of the inmates" at Duke.

I believe we all agree that the existence and influence of unqualified, activist-extremist, far left ideological-driven professors at Duke is clearly a problem, but we have differences over the present depth of the problem.

To borrow the very astute MOO Gregory's cancer analogy, I would suggest that Duke has a benign tumor that needs attention and eradication before it becomes cancerous and has a chance to metastasize.

Duke is a long way from the fate of Antioch College, although it clearly has early symptoms of the same disease that killed Antioch.

To me, a productive approach would be to discuss what can be done by alumni and Duke supporters to ensure that high academic standards are achieved in ALL Duke departments and that professors are punished for violations of Duke's Faculty Handbook, to include "Duke's anti-harassment code."

There needs to be significant leadership on these issues from the Alumni and supporters of Duke. Sadly, I've seen no evidence of that.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

To One Spook: I thought your analysis was excellent. Having also worked with CEOs for over thirty years, I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate Steel, or to miscalculate where the real power at Duke lies, whatever one might think of the ethics involved in the treatment of the lacrosse players.

Kilgore: I thought your reference to the Black Knight was hilarious ... "It's only a flesh wound!!" However, to the extent your post implies that I am somehow a fellow traveler of the G88, that's silly............ people can certainly have differences of opinion without being the lackey of one camp or the other in the culture wars. Some posters believe the radical professors are a form of terminal cancer. Others (including me) think they are a flea on the backside of an elephant, at least in Duke's case. In fact, I think that the radical professors acted as they did in the lacrosse case precisely because they understood their relative lack of power, and thought they saw an opportunity to increase their power and influence. Who's right? Only time will tell.

One Spook said...

I have been reluctant to reveal this, but shortly after he was hired, Richard Brodhead had a small microchip transmitter/receiver implanted in his broad head. The following are transcripts of two separate conversations recorded from Brodhead’s transmitter.*

The first conversation was recorded only hours after Brodhead began work at Duke.

Chairman Steel

“Dick, now we gave you this job so you wouldn’t have to languish for the rest of your life playing second-fiddle for the Yale liberal-screamo orchestra.

Here’s the first thing I want you to do at Duke: Call a press conference and praise Coach “K” as the Second Coming of Christ in order to keep him at Duke. I don't care if you can't toss a meatball from 6 inches away into a burning caldron 12 feet in diameter, I want you to grovel and plead using the effusive, fulsome praises that only a liberal English professor could construct --- imagine that you are writing a gushing review of a poem describing Gay, Lesbian and Transgender sexual symbology in Incan and Mayan art.

Duke Basketball is the single biggest moneymaker we have at Duke. When you’re done with your speech, I want not only Coach “K,” but every person with an IQ above 40 within earshot, to understand that Coach K and Duke basketball is more important than you.

Got it?"


“Yes Sir!”

The second recording was made in December '06 shortly after DA Mike Nifong announced that he was dropping the rape charges against the players.

Chairman Steel

"Dick, understand that one of the chief reasons we hired you was because we were certain that you had the necessary credentials and experience to deal with the Angry Studies Crowd at Duke.

You need to tell them to shut the hell up and not make any more public statements. Not to coin a phrase, but “whatever it is they did do is bad enough.” If any one of them comes in looking for a raise because they’ve been offered an affirmative action appointment at another university, tell them to not let the door hit them on their ass!

I’m not going to ask you to publicly bitch-slap the Angry Studies loons just yet, but you damn well better do exactly that privately, and then toss a few useless trinkets at them, like “full department recognition” or whatever doesn’t cost us much money.

Get rid of John Burness … make up a story that he had already planned to “retire” a few years ago and let him announce his departure. Order a ton of food for his retirement dinner so he can gorge himself ... that'll make him happy and it costs less than a gold watch.

I’m going to stick my neck out and come out publicly “in support of you” if you do and say exactly what I tell you. If you don’t, you’re history. And let me remind you, the governance of Duke University is not a democracy … it is a dictatorship, and I’m the dictator!

Got it?"


"Yes Sir!"

*Satire ……………… my opinions only!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

I would like to respond to "one spook" on a number of levels. First, as one who has been involved in higher education for nearly 30 years, I have watched the "Angry Studies" people turn something that once was good and advanced the cause of civilization into something unrecognizable.

Now, I agree that Duke has not (yet) been turned into something akin to a Chinese re-education camp during the Cultural Revolution, nor do all other professors quake and tremble before Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway.

Nonetheless, we saw just how much influence these people had in being able to help a corrupt prosecutor knowingly indict innocent people. This could not have been done without the implicit (and sometimes explicit) encouragement from members of the Duke faculty and administration.

Now, that is a very, very serious thing, I believe. One Spook has alluded to the great influence and wide-ranging viewpoints of Bob Steel, but he does not address the fact that Steel was dishonest, cowardly, and ultimately decided to help the prosecutor in any way he could, or at least until it became obvious even to Steel that Nifong had no case.

If Steel were such a tough guy, why did he fall on the floor before Nifong and the Angry Studies faculty? Think about it; these people got everything they wanted from Duke. They got indictments, Nifong's election, promotions for the loudest and most corrupt faculty, and their beloved CCI committees.

Granted, since the CCI people really did want a Maoist re-education camp, Steel was smart not to give into him. Nonetheless, can anyone really say that people like Lubiano, Tim Tyson, Mark Neal, Karla Holloway, and Orin Starn have made Duke University a better place?

One Spook mentions why most faculty were "wisely" silent. They knew that if they spoke up, they would be victims of retaliation. Don't forget that things like tenure and promotions are determined campus-wide, and if Wahneema Lubiano wants to run an anti-tenure campaign against someone, most likely she will succeed.

While my statements have been harsh, I don't think they are "Chicken Little" in content. When the Identity Studies people first got their "camel's nose" inside the academic tent, it was just to help "diversify" the academic appeal of the universities.

Today, these people basically run the faculties. They populate the faculty senates, they populate the tenure and promotion and curriculum committees, and they know how to run to the barricades when they don't get what they want.

So, no, Duke students don't have to recite the Little Red Book, at least not yet. Nonetheless, the way that Steel, Brodhead, and much of the faculty treated the lacrosse players and their families tells a lot about Duke University these days.

Debrah said...

Does Tyson really believe that the public---especially in Durham---has ever been in danger of students attending Duke?

And the audience to whom he plays knows better as well.

Anonymous said...

Re:The Big Guys
There is obviously a lot of truth to the idea that the insiders making decisions at Duke "understand power" or they would never have gotten there in the first place. I wonder, however, if they are not naive about some aspects of what they got themselves involved in. The truth is, they put a lot of peoples real world lives in danger. Then they spoke more or less openly about how endangering these actual, innocent lives was necessary for the good of their institution etc. - and left a pretty good paper trail. Do you get why that is naive? Unless I am mistaken, that is deeper water than even a Bob Steel is used to wading in.

Chris Halkides said...

Suppose the Duke lacrosse team were all black. Would Professor Tyson still counsel them to talk to the police without lawyers? Would he still claim that by not talking, they were violating the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Duke honor code and making a “terrible moral miscalculation?” If not by the time of the vigil then certainly shortly afterwards, there was ample reason to doubt the fairness of the DA’s office. That seems to be another factor that Professor Tyson willfully ignores.

Even if one agrees that hosting a stripper party is wrong, his claim that doing so shows that the students learned nothing from their liberal arts education at Duke is a wild extrapolation. With respect to the three indicted players, their persistent interest in cases of the unjustly imprisoned shows that they learned a great deal. Duke’s naming Professor Lee Baker of the Group of 88 as Dean of Trinity College over more qualified candidates proves that the Duke administration has learned nothing. What is worse is that it rewards anti-student behavior by a member of the faculty.

Especially grating is Professor Tyson’s claim to being at the vigil as a teacher. For contrast, let me quote Professor Stephen Baldwin of the chemistry department as he wrote in the Chronicle, “I do not believe that a faculty member publicly describing any student in pejorative terms is ever justified. To do so is mean-spirited, petty and unprofessional, at the very least. The faculty who publicly savaged the character and reputations of specific men's lacrosse players last spring should be ashamed of themselves.” Real teachers would have supported the students publicly, especially against threats of violence, and corrected them in private.


Anonymous said...

Duke 1965
Maybe the reason so many of us believe that the loonies on the left run rampant at Duke is because they are the ones that are most visible. I am confident that there are some in the Duke faculty who do not have race/class/gender agendas. Unfortunately, we do not hear from them. Is that because the Broadhead administration suppresses their free speech? Are they in fear of retaliation? Are they just too honest that they don't consider misappropriating departmental funds to promote their agendas?

No Justice, No Peace
The one person who did support the boys was Mike Presslar. Ironic that the only one at Duke to support them was the only one who was right.

One Spook
You are right in your analysis of Timmy Tyson--he is one of the Jesse Jacksons of the LAX Hoax. The scary thing is the alarmingly high number of escapees from the psych ward who are masquerading as Duke faculty. Why do college kids have to face all of these blind prejudices. Is there such a thing as an honest dialogue on a major college campus any more? I thought colleges were for teaching not indoctrination. Alas, too many "professors" are professing their hidden agendas not educating students. It is not limited to Duke by any stretch of the imagination. At least in the "lower" levels of education, there are standards which are to be taught and their is monitoring to ensure that these standards are being taught. Sure there are a few loonies from the far right and the far left who slip in their hidden agendas. They just don't have as much academic freedom to deviate from the norm as is available in the university setting. For K-12 education, it's called No Child Left Behind. For university education, it's called No Agenda Left Behind. Well, kiss my behind and call me stupid--with "teachers" like some of these, no wonder no one wants to go into education these days!

Anonymous said...

By the way, does the 3rd clip picture remind anyone else of a demented Michael Moore?

river rat said...

Duke 1965 asks:

" If you had a college-age son who badly wanted to go to Duke, would you permit him to go? If not, why not?"

My daughter recently made that decision in a very significant and expensive manner...

Duke had been the school of choice for her HS attending children.
The undenial facts of the environment that existed on the Duke campus to allow such a horror story - and that the faculty and administration individuals responsible for the environment are STILL there for the most part -- was enough to remove Duke from consideration.

The town of Durham and Duke are still attempting to defend their indefensible actions. Duke's total failure in their fiduciary responsibilities to stand with their students, rather than run with the lynch mob is unforgetable, inexcusable and unforgiveable..

Only the REMOVAL of agitators and leaders responsible for the illegal and racist attacks against the innocent would indicate Duke LEARNED anything from the experience...or were remorseful for their behavior.
Obviously they didn't...and they aren't.

This "incident" was not simply an "oh shit" moment...
It attracted national attention and the action of the State's top legal officer to prevent what the politically correct/reacists/feminists/ within Duke's faculty, administration and the city of Durham attempted to do against some innocent students.

My daughter's decision led to her leaving the East Coast and moving closer to their new choices of Universities in order to allow frequent visits to their children while they attend school.

Anonymous said...

Duke 1965 -- Glad to hear that you are not aligned with the Klan of 88 and that you thought the Monty Python reference was funny. We disagree on the extent of the damage done by the angry studies folks. So be it.

I think it is far more than a flea on an elephant. Bill Anderson is in a far better position than I to see the power these people wield, the damage done and the fear of others to not cross them. I know some academes and they are petrified to disagree. Is that what we want? Doesn't that sound like North Korea to you? Disagree with me and you will be punished! The university I remember is one where disagreeing was instrumental in forging one's own viewpoints and seeing the viewpoints of others. That seems to be far less in vogue.

Anonymous said...

So, has Duke dropped the weekly Kristin Butler and Ed Rickards column already?

Debrah said...

This guest column in the H-S is the typical fare.

Most people just accept these views as predictable and won't openly challenge the erroneous assertions.

It's like emptying the ash tray of a chain smoker. You only bother cleaning it out---(or destroying the argument, in this case)---when you have, literally, had enough. The space is continually being filled by one race-baiter after another.

"Race" will not play NEARLY the role that career race-baiters like Timothy Tyson and the guy below want the public to believe.

It's absurd that a newspaper would print an entire column devoted to such subjective emotional pap.

Many times I continue a debate on this subject, not because I think anyone's opinion will change, but because I have seen several very decent people of good will harmed by these dishonest race hounds.

Poor, old Jimmy the Greek died an earlier death because of the hyped-up harm they caused.

It's an illogical and self-serving démarche they stage against the public to intimidate freedom of expression and to attempt, at all costs, to keep reviving non-existent wars for profit.

That's why I went after the N&O senior editor Linda Williams. She oversees every page of their one-sided coverage and she was the one on duty during those early days of the Lacrosse Hoax--that first weekend of coverage.

I knew from the start that the N&O wouldn't fire her as they would have any other editor who sent out such an openly racist memo to the entire staff; however, it was an opportunity to once again drive home to the media that we know how they operate behind the scenes.

This is why I know for sure that KARMA exists. Imagine Williams getting caught and damned by her own words.....revealed to the public.

I let her know quickly that if Obama loses, it will be because of people like her and Barry Saunders who alienate independent voters on a daily basis with their bigoted remarks......as they pretend to be supporting Obama.

I feel the same way about the guest columnist below.



Jeffrey M. Elliot: Race is still the biggest issue

Guest columnist : Sep 20, 2008

With less than six weeks to go, the 2008 presidential race is just around the corner. The polls show the two major candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, running neck and neck. Who would have imagined such a close race?

America is mired in an ugly and divisive war in Iraq. The economy remains stagnant. The deficit has reached a record high. The mortgage crisis threatens millions of homeowners. One out of every five Americans lack decent health care. Tens of thousands of small businesses face bankruptcy. Dozens of major banks and savings and loans are in danger of collapse. Gas prices are soaring. The nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Thousands of small farmers are struggling to maintain their family farms. And parents are turning cartwheels to send their kids to college.

It would seem, would it not, that Obama should have an insurmountable lead in the polls? After all, the same polls show President Bush with record low approval ratings. Indeed, millions of Americans say they are sick and tired of politics as usual. And yet, as the recent primary season demonstrates, millions more yearn for bold leadership and political change. How else would you explain the tens of millions of new voters who trooped to the polls to vote for what they hoped would be a change in direction?

All of this should portend an Obama landslide, right? Wrong. For millions of Americans, this election is not about personal philosophy, public policy or even political ideology. It is about race.

Several polls have shown, quite clearly, that nearly 20 percent of the electorate say they would not vote for an African-American presidential candidate for any reason. For these voters, race is the paramount issue in the 2008 presidential election. Am I surprised? No. Why? Because bigotry is alive and well in every corner of our nation. It defines who we are and how we view each other. It affects who gets what jobs, how much we are paid, where we live, what schools we send our kids to, whether we are able to purchase decent health care, and how we are treated by the justice system.

Racism permeates every aspect of American life. It is still America's dirty little non-secret. So why are we surprised by the closeness of the presidential race? Race has always decided the winners and losers in the American political system. What is surprising, however, are the record number of voters who are able to see beyond race -- who see this election as an opportunity to take back our country and reshape our future. Despite everything the Bush administration has done to undermine traditional American values, most Americans still believe in liberty, equality, opportunity, and acceptance of diversity.

The fact is, we are better than our leaders. Perhaps that is why we are so disillusioned by our government. Most Americans want to climb the shoulders of leaders who speak to our better selves. And despite Senator McCain's claims to the contrary, this election is not about experience. It is about race.

Experience is a nebulous word. We ascribe our own meanings to it. For example, Sen. Obama received a juris doctorate from the Harvard Law School, served as a community organizer, taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, practiced law for nearly a decade, served as a state senator in the Illinois Legislature, and today represents the people of that state in the United States Senate. Does this sound like a candidate who lacks experience? Hardly.

And what about Sen. McCain? He attended the U.S. Naval Academy, volunteered to serve in Vietnam, was shot down and taken prisoner, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona, and presently serves in the U.S. Senate. The two candidates come from very different places. But both have extensive experience in and out of government.

No, it's not about experience. Despite the Arizona senator's claim, his record bespeaks a politician who has backed President Bush 90 percent of the time. A politician who has flip-flopped on the few issues over which he disagreed with the president, and a candidate who chose to link arms with the evangelicals and far-right wing of his party.

If experience were really the issue, he would not have selected as his Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

In truth, the 2008 presidential election is about race and racism. Hasn't the time come, at long last, where we can finally see beyond the "color of one's skin to the content of one's character"?

Today, we face a litany of challenges, far too many to list. Are we really willing to surrender the future to our baser instincts? The clock is ticking.

Maybe, just maybe, things will prove different this time. Once and for all, it is time for the American people to repudiate the politics of hate, bigotry, and extremism.

Jeffrey M. Elliot is a professor in and the chairman of the political science department at N.C. Central University.

Debrah said...

Here's the current page on the little film being made from Tyson's 40-year embellishment.

I've never heard of a single actor in the film except for Rick Schroder, who will play Tyson's "Diddy".

Tyson's going to have to do a lot of prayin' to pick up some coins and bills on this one.

Debrah said...

Check out this NPR audio of Tyson talking to Juan Williams back in 2004.

When something like this is being put together, you have to conduct interviews of different people from all sides.

Here you have a near-breathless-with-excitement Tyson as he rehashes the narrative.

He's in tears on this one for the national news.

Like all preachers, though, they're easily-conjured pulpit tears for effect.

Anonymous said...

I also need to make the point that I don't mind criticism coming from people like Duke 1965 and One Spook. These are not stupid people, nor are they naive about what is happening on college campuses, including Duke.

Given the kinds of threats I have received from people in Durham (I let our sheriff know about some of them), honest criticism is welcome, for goodness sakes! And we are speaking of disagreements, not matters of life and death.