Monday, January 19, 2009

Duke's $5M Defense?

National Union, the insurance company sued by Duke, has filed its response—and the brief makes for interesting reading.

Among the claims:

1.) Since December 3, 2007, according to National Union’s filing, Duke’s lacrosse case legal expenses have exceeded $5 million.

From the brief: “Pursuant to the 2006 Policy, Defendant has advanced and paid to Plaintiff Duke University as defense costs the full $5,000,000.00 policy limit.”

If true, this assertion is extraordinary: Duke has exhausted its legal limit for defense costs before the case has even entered discovery. The University, it seems, is gambling everything on prevailing at summary judgment.

(National Union also is claiming that because Duke didn’t first inform the carrier that civil suits likely would be filed until December 3, 2007, the company isn’t liable for any of the University’s legal fees before that date.)

2.) Duke first notified its insurance carrier of potential legal liability through a letter sent on March 30, 2006. The letter’s wording provided “notification of an incident only as required by the policy conditions under the referenced policy. No claim has been made against Duke at this time. Rather than repeat the alleged circumstances, I have attached a number of newspaper articles that summarize all that is publicly known about the situation at this time.”

The highlight of the article packet that Duke passed along: Samiha Khanna’s wholly false article of March 25, 2006.

Duke’s March 30, 2006 letter is interesting in two respects. First, it was sent out not when Duke first learned that a local woman had made criminal allegations against Duke students. Instead, Duke notified its insurance carrier one day after Mike Nifong and the DPD were informed that DNA tests revealed no matches to any lacrosse players.

Second, Duke elected to forward to its carrier “all that is publicly known about the situation at this time.” But the University knew that at least some of this “publicly known” information—most notably, the claim that the lacrosse players hadn’t cooperated with police, and instead had erected a “wall of silence”—was false. It’s not clear why Duke would have chosen to pass along information that University officials knew was false, even if that information had appeared in the local and national press.

(National Union also cites the March 2006 letter as important for the company’s legal case; it points to a clause in its 2007 insurance policy with Duke that precludes any coverage from the policy for events that Duke brought to the carrier’s attention in the previous year.)

3.) Duke reached a settlement with the three falsely accused players without informing its insurance carrier, and ignored subsequent requests from National Union for more information on the settlement. Duke also hired outside counsel (Jamie Gorelick of the Washington, DC firm of Wilmer Hale) without clearing the selection with its insurance carrier.

The filing adds an intriguing claim: in its confidential settlement with the falsely accused players, “Duke may have admitted or assumed liability with the Duke Three.” (Duke has refused to supply the insurance carrier with a copy of the settlement.)

4.) In a February 2008 letter, National Union informed Duke that some of the lacrosse players’ claims—if true—involved actions by University officials beyond topics covered by the insurance policy. The letter cited items such as allegations of “false and misleading statements made with intent to conceal”; “public statements made with deliberate indifference and callous disregard for the truth”; and “repeated proffer of false testimony.” (On this point, allegations regarding Duke’s violation of FERPA seem especially troublesome for the University.) The carrier also noted that other alleged actions seemed to involve the defendants’ personal behavior (Pres. Brodhead’s public musings about the lacrosse players’ personal character?) rather than any action in their official capacity.

5.) According to National Union, Duke’s bizarre defense of former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy’s conduct—that she is liable only for claims of medical malpractice, not for providing false information in an official capacity to authorities—means that there’s no coverage under National Union’s policy.

Medical malpractice claims, National Union argues, are covered instead by a Duke policy with Durham Casualty Company, Ltd. The brief hints at why Duke might want National Union rather than Durham Casualty to cover any judgments related to former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy: “DCC is a captive insurance company that is wholly owned by Plaintiff Duke University.” In other words, one way or the other, Duke would be paying for Levicy’s misconduct.

6.) The National Union brief also reveals that Duke has a $25 million insurance policy with United Educators Insurance—and contends that any lacrosse case payments should be prorated between the two insurance companies. Since the UE limit of $25 million is five times greater than National Union’s $5 million limit, National Union claims that UE should be liable for 83% (five-sixths) of any insurance payments to Duke, with National Union liable only for the remaining 17%.

Absent more information, it’s hard to speak conclusively on the merits of the Duke-National Union battle. But in its revelations of the March 30, 2006 letter, and that Duke made key decisions without informing its insurance carrier, the filing does provide more insight of Duke’s erratic behavior throughout the lacrosse case.


Debrah said...


There will never be an end to this case; however, it's just as well because the actions of those in power at Duke and in Durham will reverberate for many decades to come......and highest on the list of offenders will be the media.

A former student of KC's commented to me that he (KC) was the best professor he'd ever had and that he was a walking wealth of knowledge.

Beyond that, it seems that KC will be a part of history, himself. He's chronicled the case so intricately like no one else has.

Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, this (below) was brought to my attention.

It's a "note" from one of the most egregious promoters of the Hoax. No doubt attempting to ingratiate himself to the president-elect here.

He's characterized in this article as a "prominent Carolinian".

Minister and sit-in leader

Congratulations for making history. Imagine our pride as we watched people crying in the streets of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. It was the first time we could remember seeing Third World throngs around an American flag not in flames. The pundits will call it the Age of Obama. We know better.

It was your work as a community organizer that won this election. Not ‘Barack the Magic' anything. It was the power of precinct-by-precinct organizing. We know you cannot work miracles. But millions of Americans, open to new visions, working to make them a reality, can do anything.

Think of yourself as Community Organizer in Chief. Recruit, cajole, woo and win. Yes, we can.

All best wishes,

Tim Tyson

Author, “Blood Done Sign My Name”

Anonymous said...

...and Duke is supposedly a prestigious university? The sad thing is that the schools of medicine, law and engineering have to go along with the decisions of the administration and are being tarred with the same brush.

Big Al

drew said...

KC - you've obviously read National Union's response, and I have not. However, if what you have written on your post is a correct distillation of the responses that NU has made, Duke University should now be assuming the color of burnt toast in their suit to have the policy provide defense costs.

Perhaps more importantly, there are likely pleadings in the insurance declaratory judgment matter that will have some "spillover" effects on other litigation in the LAX matters. In particular, the timing of Duke's notice to NU is interesting, as you note. If Duke only came to realize that they had an incident on their hands that might result in an occurrence in the NU policy after the DNA results became available, a serious question results: what was it about the DNA evidence that would cause such a "triggering" event?

Or, viewed from another perspective, what action(s) on Duke's part would be not covered as a result of that date? By March 30, 2006, a number of questionable actions on the part of the Duke Administration and BOT had taken place, including the FERPA violations, various public statements by the administration, and a general "feed 'em to the wolves" attitude about the athletes involved. Yet, it appears that the University (or, more likely, its in-house counsel and risk manager) only realized that they truly had a tiger by the tail when the DNA non-match evidence started to come to light.

In addition, the apparent manner used by Duke to assert the original "Notice of Circumstance" is enlightening - rather than describe the situation factually and dispassionately in their notice, the University apparently just mailed in a collection of press clippings that (even at the time) sensationalized the original rape complaint and formed the basis of the mob mentality that sought "justice" at the expense of facts and guilt. I suspect that this was part of a calculated strategy to distance the University from any attributable quotes related to the case in its filings with National Union - quotes that could later be proven to be both false and inflammatory.

Likewise, the issues surrounding the retention of Wilmer Hale and Jamie Gorelick in particular are telling. If National Union's policy limit is $5million, the University's self-insured retention (the economic equivalent of a deductible in other policies) is probably at least $100,000, if not $500,000 or more. National Union should (and would) have no objection to Duke retaining whatever counsel they wished, provided that National Union's own funds were highly unlikely to be exposed as a result. Thus, Duke would be more than welcome to retain an overpaid ambulance chaser to defend a $25,000 suit, since the entire cost would be borne by Duke.

NU would not, however give blanket approval to any outside counsel that Duke preferred once it appeared that the costs might actually involve National Union spending some of its own money. More importantly, NU would most likely put any counsel selected under a very short leash on defense strategy, expenses, reporting, and compliance with good claims practice. I don't recall whether it was Wilmer Hale who filed the DJ action against National Union in the first place; however, if that was the case, it would seem that someone has a serious conflict of interest matter on their hands. Wilmer Hale cannot be retained by National Union at the same time that it is suing National Union to have its fees paid under the original retention agreement - if Duke used alternative counsel to represent it in the DJ action (about the policy provisions), it would be interesting to know how Duke portrayed the selection of Wilmer Hale and NU's consent in the preparation of that suit.

As is usually the case in the LAX matters, Duke appears to want to have things both (or many) ways. They want National Union to pay for the costs, but they want the costs to be incurred in a risky strategy that will not get to the actual truth in the matter. In effect, they're asking NU to "trust" them and pay, rather than to defend them from the underlying complaints brought by the players and their families.

I suspect that the level and completeness of the information flow between National Union and Duke is abysmal in nature, and that Duke is just trying to forge ahead on its own strategy, albeit with NU's money. If Duke is relying on the newspapers to "assert" its claim against NU, Duke will have a very uphill battle to convince a judge to formulate the policy in a way that will benefit the University. It all appears to be a rather poorly developed strategy, and one that is unlikely to prevail in the long run.

Anonymous said...

Inre: National Union's reponse: “...public statements made with deliberate indifference and callous disregard for the truth..."

The aforementioned National Union phrase should be included in the course synopsis for all Klan of 88 offerings.

As you make decision on how to spend $200,000 of your education dollars, consider a small sample fo the Duke Spring 2009 offerings. The vanguard frauds continue to be n the move.

This is rich...apparently there is no Ethics offering in the Spring of is clear there is no one at Duke or in Durham qualified to teach such an offering but it is hugely ironic that they even post it as an offering.


Who knew that Duke offered a Marxism and Society Certification program?

1. Marxism and Society - Michael Hardt

Marxism and Society

...will focus on ...Marx’s own works the Marxist tradition. Marx’s work presenting a political and philosophical position, but also as proposing a method of inquiry relevant to various academic disciplines and intellectual projects.

Reading the more recent authors who take up Marx’s project will give us an understanding of the alternatives within the Marxist tradition and help us gauge the relevance of Marxism as a scholarly methodology today. This is the required core course for the Perspectives in Marxism and Society certificate program.

#2. lack Male Feminism - Mark Anthony Neal

Black Male Feminism

The obvious focus of “Black Male Feminism” is an examination of men who embrace a pro (black)-feminist politics. ... aims to travel beyond the productive and ...contentious debates about the role of men in various feminist discourses, ...consider what impact feminist and queer interventions (among others) have on the very idea/ideal of black masculinity. As such the course will examine historical constructions of black masculinity and contemporary analyses of black male identity in order to critically imagine what a (more) progressive black masculinity might look like.

3. Queering Hip Hop - Mark Anthony Neal

Queering Hip Hop

In her seminal essay “Deviance as Resistance,” political scientist Cathy Cohen writes, “I continue to be interested in the possibility of constructing a field of investigation based in African American Studies and borrowing from queer theory and Black feminist analysis that is centered around the experiences of those who stand on the ~outside of state sanctioned, normalized White, middle- and upperclass, male heterosexuality.” Substituting Cohen’s “African-American Studies” with “Hip-Hop,” the goal of “Queering Hip-Hop” is to examine Hip-Hop Culture and Rap Music through the lens of black queer and black feminist analysis with a particular focus on iterations of Hip-Hop that challenge mainstream perceptions of “who and what” hip-hop is. As such “Queering Hip-Hop” is an attempt to do just that—render the “official” history of hip-hop as “strange” and “oppositional”

4. Gender/Sexuality in Latin American - Diane Nelson

Gender/Sexuality in Latin America

...uses concepts, stereotypes, and experiences of gender and sexuality to think about Latin America and uses ethnographic re-think the categories of gender and sexuality. Are such identities made or born? Do we "have" a gender (and can we have only one?)? Is gender personal or political? Is it what you do, who you are, what people think you are? Why are the stereotypes of Latins as "sensual" and North Americans as "frigid" so long-lasting? How are such ideas connected to other identity categories like nation, race, ethnicity, or class? We will explore these questions through historical documents, ethnography, literature, film, and think about indigenous issues, dictatorship and civil war, and globalization among other themes. Cases will be taken from throughout the Americas, from Virginia to Argentina, to Cuba, from the Guatemalan highlands to Brazil's marginal urban communities

5. Foundations of Feminist Theory - Robyn Wiegman

Foundation of Feminist Theory

...serves as an in-depth introduction to the various theoretical frameworks that have informed ...scholarship in ...Women’s Studies. Readings are drawn from a wide array of disciplinary arenas including law, political science, cultural studies, philosophy, anthropology, comparative ethnic studies, African American Studies, queer studies, postcolonial studies, and literary studies. ...considering the general problem of women’s oppression, since it is this problem that has motivated feminist theoretical inquiry since mid-twentieth century. Our opening texts, all foundational in what we might call the second wave feminist archive, provide paradigmatic approaches to the origin, status, and practice of women’s oppression by raising questions about the organization of the social, the history of gender difference, the value of sexual difference, and the meaning and force of feminism’s own attempt to speak for women. They beget in subsequent weeks a broad inquiry into how both women and feminism can know, while challenging us to confront the ethical implications of any feminist political or epistemological claim.

The theoretical weight of these opening inquiries will sustain our conversations throughout the semester, as we read debates about the utility of identity as a framework for political movement, the role of the nation-state in transforming women’s situation, the interplay between gender and sexuality in various theoretical traditions, and the possibility of analytical linkages between and among gender, race, sexuality, and geopolitical region. Along the way, we will grapple with what might be called the canonical questions in feminist inquiry: what is the difference (that matters) between sex and gender? How has identity operated as both the means and impediment to feminist projects for change? On whose terms does any instance of feminist inquiry try to speak? What is the relationship between the social and the psychic? What theoretical paradigms – marxist, psychoanalytic, deconstructive – will best support feminist projects for social change? And finally, is the goal of feminist theory to define and incite political change? This last question, as counter intuitive as it is, will allow us to end the course with a general consideration of the relationship between feminism, theory, and the institutional domain of Women’s Studies.

Anonymous said...

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive".

This only gets more and more interesting. What, pray tell, will Duke's response be this time?

skwilli said...

My hope that Duke players will end up owning a majority stake of Duke University is within reach! (Only barely kidding) What a wonderful world it would be.

Anonymous said...

"The sad thing is that the schools of medicine, law and engineering have to go along with the decisions of the administration and are being tarred with the same brush."

Don't feel too sorry for them -- especially not the law school. Their leaders at the time could have spoken up, but did not. Neither did an overwhelming majority of their faculty.

Duke Prof

Gary Packwood said...

Well if nothing else the Duke Fuqua School of Business has a great example now for MBA students on the need for transparency with mission critical stakeholders.

Attorneys at insurance companies would appreciate being given the opportunity to advise their client, one would think...since that is what attorney do well.

Jim in San Diego said...

Is the insurance policy available anywhere, yet? (In some jurisdictions a breach of written contract claim must be accompanied in the pleadings by a copy of the contract).

We knew that National Union did not lightly decline to pay Duke's litigation costs. Now we see why.

Whereever it is coming from, the legal advice that Duke has chosen to follow seems high on risk and low on wisdom. Perhaps Duke's attorneys need to alert their own errors and omissions carrier.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

Thanks K.C. for the analysis. This tawdry tale of mismanagement at Duke gets worse every day. In ANY Fortune 500 company, or, for that matter, any company that depends on past and present constomers of the company's product for its on-going success, the CEO would be long gone as would the Chair of the Board. Unfortunately, mismanagement in academia is not considered to be a significant problem, especially at the New Duke.At the New Duke, "warden" Brodhead has thrown in the towel, given up, gone back to reading and writing poetry, and the "inmates"(Group of 88) are running the place. The Board Chair, who has repeatedly, in multiple venues, worn the Emporer's new clothes, finds it impossible to step aside and let the necessary healing begin.

This is a very sad situation.

Anonymous said...

There will never be an end to this case

No. Prepare to wait until infinity.

Anonymous said...

@ Peterson

My experience with counsel, particularly litigation counsel, is that their advice usually ends with, "but THAT is a business judgment" or "THAT is only a reasoned opinion." You seldom, perhaps never, get anything that you can take to the bank. So I doubt that outside counsel left themselves open to a malpractice case.

Duke deserves all the grief that it is getting and will get until it settles, but I doubt it can successfully blame its outside counsel. Duke seems consistently to have chosen what they perceived to be their short-term PR advantage over any thoughtful, careful response.


Jim in San Diego said...

We are beginning to see from the inside what motivated the Duke administration early on. The notification of their insurer by sending copies of the false media reports that Duke students had raped a young black mother is revealing.

The media reports were certainly adequate to notify the insurer of potential liability. They also were a clever way to deliver notice without any substantive discussion of the reports, which might become admissions when discovered later.

Clearly, Duke viewed its major sources of liability to be (a) money liability towards CM, and (b) reputational injury as an institution.

Duke's responsiblility to provide its own students due process or protect them in loco parentis was nowhere in the mix. Duke of course had these responsibilities even if the media reports were true, not false.

The Administration must have been aghast when the G88 published its advertisement suggesting that racism and violence towards women was part of the Duke culture, and everyone (including the Administration) knew about it. Here were 98 ready made witnesses for the plaintiff in CM's civil action.

Evidence that Duke knew or should have known of the campus violence and racism would create essentially unlimited exposure to civil liability for a victim of this culture.

From afar, it looks like Duke has intentionally created a monster within by promoting women's studies and AAS departments which believe and advertise that Duke's campus is rife with racism and violence towards women. The Administration simply cannot keep far enough ahead of this bowwave by any degree of pandering.

Jim Peterson

Tim G said...

Inre: National Union's reponse: “...public statements made with deliberate indifference and callous disregard for the truth..."

Sounds like the definition for libel (or slander). I am no lawyer.

Debrah said...

I think I'm having a dream today.

That Karla, Orin S, Timothy T, little miriam, Luv Hardt, Thug Intellectual, righteous dude Chafe, and the ever vigilant Wahneema....(as well as all the rest of the Gang)......

.....will one day be able to walk down the sidewalks and the scholarly corridors and judge their students not by the color of their skin or the content of their wallets, but by the content of their character.

I have a dream.

And believe me, that's all it is!

One Spook said...

Jim Peterson @ 1:41 PM writes:

"Evidence that Duke knew or should have known of the campus violence and racism would create essentially unlimited exposure to civil liability for a victim of this culture."

That is absolutely on the money!

I've thought for a long time that poor Crystal, described by many at Duke as a "victim," needs to move on to "Plan C."

Plan A was to "make some money off some rich white boys." That didn't work.

Plan B was to make some money by writing a book. According to Amazon statistics, that hasn't worked.

"Plan C" should be for Crystal to engage the services of a cracker jack Civil Rights plaintiff's attorney like say, Al McSurely, and file a lawsuit against Duke.

There are a host of reasons this is a good strategy. Here are a few:

1. Duke has more money (at least as of now) than all of the subject "rich white boys" combined.

2. At least 88 Duke professors have asserted in writing that a climate of "students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism" exists at Duke and in fact, and "what happened" to Crystal "didn't begin on March 13" and "Like all disasters, this one has a history."

3. Former Duke President Nannerl Keohane has very recently stated publicly that, during her presidency at Duke, she "... had attempted to deal with some of the things that may have been at the root of the problem, but we hadn't really made a huge amount of progress."

4. Top administrators at Duke have consistently referred to Crystal as a "victim" in this matter.

For those reasons, and others, I believe that Crystal has an excellent case against Duke.

"Plan C" anyone?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

"Samiha Khanna’s wholly false
article of March 25, 2006."

Are you sure about that?

She didn't get anything right?

Does that make UPI wholly false also?

Anonymous said...


Loved your I have a dream speech.

One Spook

Your hammer needs to be retooled. It hit so many nails on the head it must need to be retooled.


Maybe Duke is positioning itself, with help from Bob Steal and Jamie Gore-lick, to get some kind of TARP money. Maybe that should be TRAP money. Seems to me that Duke has trapped itself in a lot of wrong actions and statements. How much Made-off money do they have?

Anonymous said...

"Plan C" anyone?

Yes of course, good plan.

And why not Plan D for Crystal as well - she should sue DUMC for malpractice...

Anonymous said...

**ATTN Tim Tyson**

Not everyone is happy with your "Community Organizer in Chief".

Demonstration in Iran Burns US Flag, Throws Shoes and Burns pictures of Obama & Mubarak

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 6.07:

I should note that, according to a commenter in an earlier thread, both Tim Tyson and Bill Chafe donated money not to Obama but to John Edwards.

As the commenter noted, perhaps 88'er Grant Farred can now denounce Tyson and Chafe for "secret racism."

Anonymous said...

Is Khanna a Communist?

Debrah said...

"Is Khanna a Communist?"

No, just a casualty of N&O's downsizing strategies.

However, the woman who helped hone and then approve Khanna's ridiculous 2006 interview with "the victim" is still riding high.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you can see the prominence of the N&O's late March coverage in setting up Nifong's criminal frame of the lacrosse players. Why hasn't the newspaper apologized for its misleading reporting and editing?

Anonymous said...

Jim Peterson wrote: "The Administration simply cannot keep far enough ahead of this bowwave by any degree of pandering."

Thank you! Excellent post. In the end, they will settle with the Duke students. They've already settled with the Group of 88 for the sin of not lynching hard enough.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Khanna's article was false. Yes, Crystal was at the LAX party, so that is the only thing that is "true," but the description of the party was false and everything else fit into that category.

The N&O is like Duke, in that both are politically-correct at the core, and what is left of the staff is expected to write the news according to a PC template. Columnists like Barry Saunders are permitted to engage in race-baiting, and the newspaper's editors want everyone else to believe that the N&O gave great coverage to the case throughout.

One thing that has struck me in this case has been the "We're Duke and you're not" attitude of the administration. It also is clear that the administration has believed in its "investment" of bringing in radical faculty and attempting to infect the entire Duke curriculum with its PC leftism.

One reason that more faculty did not speak up during the time when the criminal charges were in play was because the Identity Studies faculty play personal hardball. They instantly retaliated against anyone who spoke up. Remember the professor who used "tarred and feathered"? He was called a racist and backed down.

The Identity Studies faculty know how to operate. They intimidate, get on university committees that deal with promotions and tenure, and they run whole colleges. In a real sense, THEY are in charge at Duke; it is they who set the tone for the university, and anyone who crosses them will have hell to pay.

It is not an accident that the university has given members of the G88 even more authority and influence after the infamous ad. This is not bumbling or "bad judgment" by the administration. They are proud of Duke's PC direction and will crush anyone who might object.

Ex-prosecutor said...

I probably can answer questions a lot of readers have as to how Wilmer Hale, and their ace trial lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, could have collected 5 million in legal work when all they've done, to date, is file a few lengthy pleadings and give wise-sounding but shaky legal advice.To many, it would seem that even the most imaginative, larcenous and money-grubbing lawyer could not bill anywhere close to that amount. Here's how they did it.

Duke's lawyers obtained a beta copy of an amazing legal billing system which I developed and have called "Fudge."

With "Fudge," the lawyer must input limited information into the system, mainly the name of the client, the general type of work involved (though, and this is the beauty of the system, no work at all need be done)and how much the lawyer wants to make off the case.

With this simple bit of information, Fudge will generate lengthy and detailed bogus monthly statements, showing many conferences, meetings, pleadings drafted, and letters written. Month after month, Fudge will continue to generate such bills, until all of the clients money is gone. Fudge users then would be expected to drop the client, for non-payment of fees.

W. R. Chambers said...

When all is said and done it will be interesting (depressing) to estimate how much money was spent on legal services together with the value of pro bono services related to the prosecution and defense of the criminal and civil cases.

And while there will be much to talk about (speculate about) in terms of the lawyering, it would be of great interest to know how involved the clients in the civil case are in deciding what their lawyers do. Lawyers are required to abide by client decisions as to objectives and to consult with clients as to means. Some clients adopt a "let the lawyers deal with it" approach, which sometimes results in missed opportunities to achieve an outcome the client would have preferred had the client had a firmer grasp on the pace, flow, expense and likely outcome of the litigation not only in court but in a larger context.

Gary Packwood said...

drew 1/19/09 7:57 AM said...

...What was it about the DNA evidence that would cause such a "triggering" event?
That must have been the day Brodhead was informed by university council that Dave, Reade and Collin were real people with real families and not related in any way to the stereotype bad boy propaganda put forth by the Women's Center along with the various Anger Studies Departments.

It must be a really bad day when you learn that you personally have enabled and then maintained a hostile work environment on campus around fantastic lies coming from a small segment of your own faculty, staff, students and the local Criminal Justice leadership.

Just how long had these fantastic lies been circulating?

I would be much more interested in learning what the attorneys had to say in order to get the attention of the decision makers at Duke.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 11:13 PM writes:

"Once again, you can see the prominence of the N&O's late March coverage in setting up Nifong's criminal frame of the lacrosse players. Why hasn't the newspaper apologized for its misleading reporting and editing?"

That is an excellent question, and your premise and question would apply similarly to other media outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Durham HS, among many others.

In an earlier reply, I asserted that various forms of professional malpractice characterized many of the events in this lacrosse rape hoax, including: medical malpractice; law enforcement malpractice; educational administrative malpractice; academic malpractice; and journalistic malpractice.

Of those forms of professional malpractice, the acts of journalistic malpractice are rarely if ever, brought to the attention of the public, and for obvious reasons: "traditional journalists" rarely criticize their peers; and self-criticism by media outlets is a mockery.

Indeed, KC Johnson has written that a few media outlets revised their coverage as true facts began to emerge, but instances of actual apologies were rare, if any. Johnson commented on the "self-assessment" by the public editor of the New York Times regarding its coverage of the case, and that assessment by the Times is one of the most feckless, irresponsible reports that newspaper has ever issued.

If one is looking for any media outlet to apologize for "misleading reporting and editing," look first for signs of hell freezing over.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Jamie Gorelick was hired for her extraordinary political skills. WHile her abilities as a litigator leave something to be desired, nobody but nobody can backstab and scheme like Gorelick. Duke knew it would pay her an ungodly sum of money, but their strategy has been, is and will be trying to make the lacrosse players the bad guys in all of this. As a point of reference, when I was at an alumno event in the fall, administrators boasted that those of us who thought Brodhead should leave for DUke to get a fresh start should just be patient until we heard about the high school histories of these players. High school! That is vintage GOrelick -- to threaten to publicize events from 10th grade to intimidate them into settling and, more importantly, to try to win the PR battle. And make no mistake, to Duke this is not about right or wrong, or even money -- it is about who controls the PR angle. I would not be surprised if Duke has been investigating parents and siblings for dirt. Any port in a storm.

There were many alums who were unhappy when Duke chose Gorelick because we all knew where it was going. Quite expensive and in the end destructive to everyone.

Amazingly, based upon what I know from alum circles and the lacrosse worlds, if Duke had simply apologized (and meant it), this whole episode would be behind them. Instead, Duke chose to engage in scorched earth tactics. While I will hate to see my school embarrassed, unfortunately that may have to happen before they stop.


Anonymous said...

Wow. Just, wow. Duke is so utterly screwed--and by its *own* insurance company! Were I advising the LAX 3, Coach Pressler, and the rest, I'd just sit tight, lever the discovery that the insurance companies will extract, and then go for the "kill shot." These kids will soon just own Duke and its endowment. Once everyone literally finishes off Duke, the cross-hairs turn to Durham and its tax base.

Honestly, now, who could have ever--and I mean ever--imagined that the ass-clowns running Duke could have blundered so badly. I mean, this isn't really a fair fight anymore. Just utterly unbelievable.

Kids--want to see what *real* lawyers look like? Just watch the pros advising National Union (as well as, of course, the wonderful attorneys that vindicated the LAX 3). Good-bye, Duke.

Anonymous said...

If this is the sort of thing which is coming out now, I can't wait until all the Duke internal emails come slithering out in discovery.

Jamie said...

To the 4:34 pm:

Okay, it is not quite correct to say that the 2006 Samiha Khanna article on Ms. Mangum is “wholly false”, nor can one claim that it contains half-truths.

After all, that article does make several factual statements, such as The woman ... says she was raped…The two women [were] both black, and so on. So let’s be fair, it wasn’t wholly inaccurate.

Indeed, by my rather careful word count, just about 30% of Khanna’s N&O article was correct; however, no way does it rise close to being half true.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1/19/09 12:44 PM said...

"There will never be an end to this case"

"No. Prepare to wait until infinity."

I could end 3 1/2 mins before eternity. We'll have to wait and see


Anonymous said...

“What is life but a teardrop in the eye of infinity?”

-- Carson Clay, fictional but accurate representative of the selfabsorbed PC crowd.

Anonymous said...

"... should just be patient until we heard about the high school histories of these players. High school!"

OK. Of the three accused, one graduated HS without any demerits, and the other was recently honored by his school and held up as an example. (I omit the third simply because I have no knowledge of his HS career.)

And as a reminder, the Scottsboro boys were no angels. One of them later committed a murder, and their earlier histories were not Sunday School stories. But none of that had any bearing whatever on the fact that they were falsely charged, falsely tried, and falsely convicted, for things that never happened--

because society wanted them to fit their contemporary metanarrative.

Anonymous said...

Prepare to wait until infinity. Durham will. It isn't called Bull for nothing.


Debrah said...

TO (7:09 AM)--

What you have posted is exactly right.

That's why when I called the chancellor's office at UNC-CH about the childish behavior of the head of the sociology department when I objected to the goofy column by one of his doctoral candidates who used "statistics" and "studies" throughout as if those were the only view of the particular issue, the people in the chancellor's office agreed with me and everything was very civilized and nice, but the bottom line is that they do nothing.

And as we all know, Duke is much worse.

You were also quite accurate when you said that the N&O is like Duke. There is such a cloud of robotic behavior among the people who work there.

I didn't want to actually voice it for a long time because I've had a very pleasant relationship with publisher Quarles since he took over, but there's no question that having a black publisher turns the news on its head unless that publisher is generous enough and professional enough and honest enough to release the white employees of the madness that, no doubt, many of them must be a part of.

Of course there are employees who aren't black who are just as PC-infused as most black employees; however, there are many who are simply afraid of losing their jobs.

And most egregious of all is that those who constantly complain and whose views are given prominence and approval (black employees) are the ones who actually run the workplace.....even as they rise higher by keeping the idea of being "disadvantaged" on the table.

Think about how some white employees at the N&O must have felt when editor Linda Williams sent out a memo using the word "redneck"---(the written word used in a professional setting!!!)---who might have come from parents just one step from living in a trailer park and who work hard every day for a better life, financially. Perhaps they didn't have a chance to go to university, but have been working any job available at the newspaper.

Does anyone believe these people would feel free to complain to Williams and to publisher Quarles?

Even a few white editors with whom I spoke said, "No comment".

Isn't that hideous given the way the black community make grievances such a major part of their existence? That's why so many of them are getting scared after Obama's election. So afraid that the excuses and the "pity party" hold less currency.

Moreover, in this economy and with the demise of the print media business on the horizon, most employees who disagree with them cannot afford to place "right" above survival.

What has begun to concern me is that some who are working in the N&O online division are injecting their own beliefs into what is allowed to stay up on the fora and what is not.....just as the editorial pages have been handled for so long.

The excuses made recently are quite pathetic.

I've also noticed lately that the N&O editorial page editors have begun using op-ed submissions from UNC-CH professors with more frequency. Since all the embarrassing things have come out about the Gang of 88's behavior---mostly because of Wonderland and a few others---they seemed to have moved from the Ultra PC Campus to PC Lite.

But not to worry, Gang of 88 clones exist everywhere.

Anonymous said...

I have this question: If these lacrosse players were so evil as high schoolers, then why did Duke ever admit them to the university?

So, on the one hand, we have an administration that lied, worked hand-in-glove with a corrupt and lying prosecutor, had its attorneys lie in court when the university denied that it already had given FERPA-protected information to Nifong, and covered for a nurse who was lying about the evidence.

But, Duke wants us to believe that this behavior was OK. However, LOOK AT THOSE EVIL LACROSSE KIDS. BOY, YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT THEY DID IN HIGH SCHOOL!!

Am I the only one who sees this as rank hypocrisy?

Debrah said...

I couldn't resist leaving this in the N&O's Opinion Shop.

Their cartoonist as well as a few on the editorial staff have been there for decades.

It can only be a positive if they ever move on soon.

Jim in San Diego said...

According to the court docket for the Duke vs. National Union case, National Union filed nineteen exhibits with its answer to Duke's complaint.

(This was case 1:2008cv00854, filed Nov 24, 2008)

Does anyone know if these exhibits included Duke's insurance policy(s), and if so, where we might find the exhibits on-line?

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:01 said...

And as a reminder, the Scottsboro boys were no angels. One of them later committed a murder, and their earlier histories were not Sunday School stories. But none of that had any bearing whatever on the fact that they were falsely charged, falsely tried, and falsely convicted, for things that never happened--

because society wanted them to fit their contemporary metanarrative.

I've read as much of the trial testimony of the Scottsboro Boys trials as I could find. It is not at all clear that they were "falsely charged, falsely tried, and falsely convicted, for things that never happened". In the days before DNA, rape trials were very much "she said/he said" affairs. In the case of the Scottsboro case, at the first trial, the boys acknowledged the girls were rape while each disclaimed personal responsibility. As subsequent trials, the boys recanted their testimony -- actually all but one said they had never said it, though it was said in open court. One admitted he had made the incriminating statements but only for fear of law enforcement.

It should be kept in mind that the Scottsboro affair didn't begin with rape charges by white women, but with assault and battery charges brought by white men. The undisputed (and unrecanted) testimony in court shows that, at a minimum, the boys were guilty of aggravated assault, battery, and conspiracy to commit each. And depending on other facts -- such as the injuries caused -- they could be guilty of aggravated battery, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, kidnapping.... In other words, even without there ever being an allegation of "rape", these defendants were going to go to prison for years, perhaps decades.

Of course, as you suggest, there were no such serious underlying crimes in the Lacrosse case.


Anonymous said...

RRH is wrong on the Scottsboro Boys trial. The doctor who examined Victoria Peterson concluded that she was not raped, and that her story could not have been true. Judge Horton did not make him testify, as the doctor was in fear of his life if he were to testify to the truth.

There was a fight on the train, but there was no rape. Ruby Bates, the other woman, was the one who recanted her testimony.

Anonymous said...

One Spook, Inre: "...Of those forms of professional malpractice, the acts of journalistic malpractice are rarely if ever, brought to the attention of the public, and for obvious reasons: "traditional journalists" rarely criticize their peers; and self-criticism by media outlets is a mockery."

I'd like to gently push back.

One could make the case that the public is paying attention and leaving the traditional news in droves. The media, of course, claim it is due wholly to the delivery channel (Internet) and cannot possibly grasp that their catastrophic loss of business is due to the bias and poor agenda driven content.

MNI is trading today at $0.76 per share, down from north of $70.00. MNI owns, among others, the N&O. It is also important to realize that their market share(s) as a percent of available market have dropped as well. Put another way, people aren't moving out of Raliegh, they are moving into the area and not subscribing.

Anonymous said...

One "theory" of the case that has occurred to me many times is that Duke Administration took the news of the DNA no-match as a spur to position themselves in the politically correct zone before the whole thing went away. It had to have occurred to them that a no-match meant no-case. I think their biggest fear during this phase was that the Univ. and the Durham gang of PC scam-artists would respond to the news of the case being dropped - for any reason- with a chorus of accusation that the school had somehow done something behind the scenes to get their elite, very privileged, white male athletes off.
It must have seemed inevitable that a dismissal was imminent. Therefore, they had to act fast and decisively if they were going to prove that they were on the RIGHT SIDE of the paradigm of political correctness.
On the other hand, I read history as a hobby. A basic lesson that has come across to me from indulging in my hobby is that a lot of high level leadership decisions are made on the basis of stupidity, inattention, and laziness.
I eagerly await more discovery in this case.

Anonymous said...

I think that hman is correct. However, Crystal herself stated that Duke was the behind-the-scenes player that got the charges dropped, and others in Durham and elsewhere have said the same thing.

The very thing that Duke's leadership said they feared happened despite Duke's best efforts not only to cut off the players and their families, but to help the prosecutor. After all, Nifong's "star" witness was a Duke employee, Tara Levicy, and don't forget Duke's giving Nifong the FERPA information illegally.

In that last one, Duke's lawyers and Nifong pretended in Kenneth Titus' courtroom that Nifong did not have that information, and that Duke did not hand it over. The attorneys and Nifong lied, to put it more bluntly.

They lied, but Titus did nothing, even when it was discovered later that the attorneys were lying to him. When a judge condones lies, and when a great university has its attorneys lying in a court of law, that tells us about "justice" in Durham and the view that Duke's leadership has toward the law.

Debrah said...

TO 10:09 PM)---

I'm sure you didn't mean Victoria Peterson; however she's the one who injects herself into every major trial that takes place in Durham.


Peterson has been a perpetual political candidate and every time comes up short.

Seems even the race-hustlers in Durham find her a bit creepy.

We all remember that she approached KC on an elevator when he was in the Triangle covering the story.

She asked him if he might be the husband of Brown, the woman who used to be Nifong's campaign manager, but who turned against him, ultimately.

Peterson had seen KC talking with Brown and then asked him if he was her husband....even though KC is much younger. (Nothing wrong with that!)

However, this is to illustrate how nutty Peterson is. If KC had said "yes", she would have "interrogated" him and perhaps would have verbally harassed him the way she did Collin Finnerty's mother at the disbarment hearings.

That's the time she interrupted a news reporter's live story....after she had been removed from the courtroom.

No, Peterson is not Mangum, but she might be just as nutty.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:09 PM says…

RRH is wrong on the Scottsboro Boys trial. The doctor who examined Victoria Peterson concluded that she was not raped, and that her story could not have been true. Judge Horton did not make him testify, as the doctor was in fear of his life if he were to testify to the truth.

There was a fight on the train, but there was no rape. Ruby Bates, the other woman, was the one who recanted her testimony.

While saying that I am “wrong on the Scottsboro Boys trial”, Anonymous does not say where. He then says that “[t]he doctor who examined Victoria Price concluded she was not raped.”

First, I do not blame Judge Horton for setting aside the jury’s verdict in this trial (which was a re-trial of one of the defendants two years after the events). As I said in my prior post, rape trials before DNA were usually “he said/she said” affairs and I agree with Judge Horton that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt verdict. Contrary to received wisdom about the “racist South”, newspapers throughout Alabama praised Judge Horton’s decision. Interestingly, Judge Horton said this in overturning the verdict: ”History, sacred and profane, and the common experience of mankind teach us that women of the character shown in this case are prone for selfish reasons to make false accusations of both rape and insult…” The Birmingham (Ala.) News praised Judge Horton’s “forthright manner in which he cuts through the maze of confusions… in trying these cases and doing simple justice by the defendants.” Would it not be informative for us to contemplate today what the result would have been had a jury conviction of the Lacrosse Boys been overturned by a judge using such language about Crystal Mangum? Would the newspapers be full of praise for the judge?

As for the doctor who told Judge Horton “the rape charges were false”, this story was not told by Judge Horton until 1966, more than 30 years after the trial. According to Judge Horton, the prosecution asked to dismiss one of the two doctors who had examined the accusers saying the testimony would be duplicative: Both doctors were going to testify that the girls had had recent sexual relations, but neither was going to testify that he could conclude that the girls had been raped. There was no Tara Levicy in the Scottsboro Case.

Judge Horton said – for the first time -- in a 1966 interview about the case that the dismissed doctor, Dr. Lynch, asked during a break of the trial to speak with him privately and that Judge Horton conferred with the doctor alone in a bathroom after posting a guard at the door. It was in this conversation that Judge Horton alleged the Dr. Lynch told him that he was convinced, based on the accusers’ demeanor so soon after the alleged rape – they were relaxed and laughing, he said, that no rape had occurred. This story about “the bathroom witness”, if true, is a jaw-dropping breach of judicial conduct. A trial judge should never be privately interviewing witnesses in a bathroom in the middle of a trial. Unfortunately for Judge Horton, it turned out that in 1966 Dr. Lynch, too, was still living, and he denied the story. Do I even have to report that in the Hollywood version of this case, this story is treated as absolute gospel? Also, contrary to Anonymous, even Judge Horton did not claim that “the doctor feared for his life if he “told the truth”, but rather he said that the doctor, then a young man, feared for the future of his career. Many mistakes are made when we get our history from Hollywood.

Anonymous says “there was a fight on the train”. This was a “fight” in the same way that the recent Jena Hoax involved a “fight” – a surprise assault by an overwhelming number of blacks on a small group of whites which quickly ended with all the whites thrown off the train. Calling it “a fight” is like calling what happened to black protestors who were sprayed with fire hoses in the 1960s “a bath”.

Finally, Anonymous says that “Ruby Bates, the other woman, was the one who recanted her testimony”. Here Anonymous seems to suggest – by calling Ruby Bates “the one who recanted” -- that I was wrong about the Scottsboro Boys defendants recanting their own admissions. I am not at all wrong on that score – but since Anonymous doesn’t say it outright, I won’t spend time proving it.

Anonymous is right that Ruby Bates, the younger of the two original accusers, recanted her original accusations. The story of this recantation has so many twists and turns as to require far more discussion here than I can justify in this off-topic thread. I will refer readers to a PBS site with a warning that, as informative as that site is, it is not dispositive of all questions.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the post-trial tirade of defense attorney Samuel Leibowitz, made to a New York City crowd: “If you ever saw those creatures [the jurors] – those bigots, whose mouths are slits in their faces, whose eyes pop out at you like frogs, whose chins drip tobacco juice, bewhiskered and filthy – you would not ask how they could do it.” Would it not be interesting today to imagine one of the Lacrosse Boys’ lawyers making such a post-conviction public description of blacks on a Durham jury? As I have said before, what happened in Durham, 2006, was far, far worse than what happened in Scottsboro, 1931.


Anonymous said...

I want to provide a heads up to K.C. and the folks on the blog. It seems that Duke has decided to make UBUNTU an official living group at the university. See the article in the chronicle here:

I have already posted a comment to the article. Here it is:

Duke University continues to celebrate and promote its Duke Lacrosse Hoax heritage by promoting and decorating individuals and organizations that formed the spine of that attempted lynching. The latest is UBUNTU, which now enjoys a sanitized description as a "civic engagement" organization and has attained official recognition as a Duke "living group."

Born as the twisted offspring of 88 hate-filled professors who chose to use university time and facilities to condemn their own innocent students and hundreds of pot-banging (and non-due-process believing) students, UBUNTU is "an artistic and organizing community that emerged in Durham, NC during the Duke Lacrosse Scandal." The group was formed to hate Duke students based on the flimsiest of "evidence" (read gossip):

A mother, A student, A dancer, A human, A survivor… I am that woman. End rape now! In Durham, North Carolina, USA, community members are breaking the silence about sexual assault and racist violence as part of a long struggle against racism, classism, sexism and all forms of oppression."

UBUNTU thirstily joined the charge to bloody their fellow Duke students by supporting marches, distributing material and writing blog posts. Even a year after the Hoax, the group still pressed for a lynching of the by then obviously innocent fellow students:

"A little more than a year after the infamous Duke lacrosse rape case, a coalition of eight organizations in North Carolina are working together to create a world free from sexual violence and all other forms of oppression.

A march, entitled 'Creating a World Without Sexual Violence, National Day of Truthtelling,' is to take place in Durham, N.C., on April 28. The organizations responsible for this day of action are Raleigh FIST (Fight Imperialism, Stand Together), UBUNTU, Men Against Rape Culture, ...."

This disgusts me as much as South Carolina proudly raising the Confederate flag or the parades and other actions of Neo-Confederate groups like the League of the South that celebrate the history and ideals of the Confederate States of America. It disgusts me, but it does not surprise me as this type of idiocy from Brodhead, Steel and Duke Administration has become de rigueur. These are my opinions except for the quotations. MOO! Gregory


NOTE: An UBUNTU blog, in which they attempt to lynch Ryan McFadyen, proves the old adage, "Free Speech for Me, but not for thee":

"Ryan McFadyen should be held accountable. He should not get the privilege of representing Duke in the public. He should undergo counseling and face University sanctions. He should publicly apologize and seek to repair the damage he has done and the terror he has inspired. Anything less is an attack on students, faculty, staff, and community members who have ever participated in sex work, or are women of color, white women, identify as LGBQ or transgender, or believe that Duke University is a place that values safety and integrity."


Duke University Residence Life and Housing Services officials evaluate potential selective living groups "on their contributions to both their groups and the Duke community."

MOO! Gregory

One Spook said...

The ever-talented "MOO Gregory," using his nom de plume "Tortmaster," posted an array of on point comments about the 2006 UBUNTU group at The Chronicle. In this effort, Gregory beat a Duke sophomore, "Evil Man," like a rented mule.

Feeling a bit sorry for this student, I posted the following comment there as well:


My, my ... I feel as if I'm breaking up a bar fight.

Evil Man, you need to understand that everything the Tortmaster has written here is entirely accurate.

You also need to realize that Duke University has the institutional memory of a kindergarten on matters pertaining to the Duke lacrosse hoax of 2006 to present.

Since you are a sophomore, it is somewhat understandable that you might not be fully aware that just three years ago the Duke administration and faculty committed tortious and criminal acts against a significant number of its student athletes. Three of those student athletes settled lawsuits against Duke for tens of millions of dollars, and other student athletes settled lawsuits against Duke for grade retaliation as well.

Duke is presently defending itself against multiple lawsuits from other student athletes, alleging a wide array of wrongs committed by Duke against them in the course of the Duke lacrosse hoax, one of the most shameful episodes of blatant denial of civil rights for university students in the history of American education.

The Ubuntu group that you assert is not connected with your group was one of several ad hoc radical groups that , together with a good number of Duke faculty, participated in "lynch mob" behavior that presumed the guilt of student athletes for alleged crimes that never happened, and as the true facts emerged, those student athletes were declared innocent by the Attorney General of North Carolina.

If you were not aware of those facts, certainly the Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education, Steve Nowicki, and Vice President of Student Affairs Larry "Water Buffalo" Moneta are aware of those facts, should have been aware of the toxic reputation of the "2006 Ubuntu Group," and should have advised against choosing such a name. I doubt that they would have approved the name "Central Kampus Klan" for your organization.

I admire your group for the effort it is making, but please help your own cause by changing the name of your group. The Bantu word for "house" is "Umba" or "Nuumba." Those are beautiful words and certainly appropriate for your purpose.

Please give my suggestion careful consideration, and accept my best wishes for success with your project.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Here's my new favorite one-sentence description of the Durham/Duke Lying Hooker & Militant Faculty case:

A liar, a crook and a bunch of cowards.

I hope I didn't steal it from anyone! MOO! Gregory

Gary Packwood said...


The U.S. Department of Education released the new Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)guidelines which will take effect this month.

Student journalists are at least talking about FERPA now which was not the case when we first became aware of the Duke University lacrosse rape hoax.

I wonder if police departments are training their officers about the consequences of accessing student computer files from the students dormitory room without a court order?

Anonymous said...

The following is the link to the Duke Chronicle article Gregory mentioned above.

Admins OK Ubuntu SLG for Central

A few observations:

1. Is the title to the article clear? It's like a text message. I thought titles should be designed to attract attention and draw reader into the message. Whether intentionally or not this title doesn't draw readers into the topic of Selective Living Groups.

Duke certainly doesn't promote these SLG to prospective students who tour the campus. Where is the truth-in-advertising?

2. How in the world did they determine that 20-30 beds will meet the needs of the student community?

"...The group will have a block of apartments on or around Alexander Street with 20 to 30 bed spaces,..."

Did they conduct market surveys? If so, by whom? Is there demand for SLGs or is this a supply driven mandate from above based-upon the build it an they will come model.

"...Placing an SLG on Central will also attract more students to the campus and generate more traffic in the area, said Steve Nowicki, vice provost and dean of undergraduate education..."

Really, this SLG will generate more traffic? If that is a goal then why were other organizations moved off campus?

It really boggles the mind why someone would drop $200,000 and place their child in this environment.

3. "...The ultimate goal is to leave a lasting legacy for the University."

Legacy indeed, Ubuntu already is one part of the sordid legacy of injustice and intolerance in this dark age in Duke history.

Thanks again Gregory - your posts are consisently amusing and cleverly cutting.

Anonymous said...

Hey, KC: since you are apparently a demagogue for these nutcases, maybe you can do Gregory a favor and explain some facts to how Ubuntu House is a totally unaffiliated group from the UBUNTU he likes to bash so much.

Or, you can take him at his word and totally discredit yourself by posting false information as factual.

I suppose you could also take a third option of "doing nothing" in response to his comment. If you did that, though, someone MIGHT suggest that your silence was neither an endorsement or a rejection, and someone MIGHT try to skew things one way and suggest that silence implies complicity, and someone MIGHT then say that this would look pretty bad.

MOO! Anon

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 12.08:

I would urge you to look at item 2 of the blog's comments policy: "2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1200 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions."

While your perspective on the relationship between the bloggers and commenters resembles Bill O'Reilly's (given in his diatribe against Daily Kos' Markos Moulstas), I believe that my perspective is shared by most bloggers, and, indeed, by most tech-savvy people in general.

Anonymous said...


Why would Duke start a new civically-engaged UNBUNTU when another civically-engaged UNBUNTU was operating on campus and in Durham for the last 2 1/2 years? Why would a second UBUNTU steal "UBUNTU" from the first UBUNTU unless one UBUNTU was a splinter cell of the other UBUNTU? In the end, when it comes to UBUNTUs, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! There can be little doubt, however, that UBUNTU became synonymous with "lynching white Duke students" in Durham and at Duke.


IHOPH REP: "International House of Pancakes House. How can I help you?"

CALLER: "Are you still running the two-for-one crepe special?"

IHOPH REP: "I'm sorry, sir, we're the 'International House of Pancakes House,' not the 'International House of Pancakes.'"

CALLER: "Why did you pick such a stupid and confusing name?"

IHOPH REP: "There's a finite number of words and combinations of those words in the language, and 'Pancakes International of House' makes little, if no, sense."

CALLER: "Touche. Maybe you can help me with something else, though, can you tell me where I can find the next lynching of white, male Duke students?"

IHOPH REP: "That would be UBUNTU House."



These are my opinions only, even the quoted text. (This admonition, apparently, goes well over the heads of some!) LOL! Thanks, One Spook and No Justice, you folks obviously "get it." MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Im leaveing this on the chronic website too but maybe KC can explain why the 88 can still write about lacrosse and hide it with fancy titles. Like why is Halloway giving a keynote address at Clark University. Acc to the website the talk is Home Invasions A Narrative about Race and Privacy. Of course its about lacrosse. And Wiegman is doing a fancy seminar about Alternating Political Imaginations. And Chafe has a new book out about the Rise and Fall of the American Century. KC please give us the details. All it takes is a simple websearch to keep up with these people. Your not writing about the faculty so much anymore.

Anonymous said...

An e'mail I just sent to Clark University, where Karla Holloway has been invited to speak:

Dear Ms. Riopel-Nelson (,

I write to protest Clark University's invitation to Karla F.C. Holloway, an employee of Duke University, to be a featured speaker at an upcoming conference. Ms. Holloway was the ringleader of a group of professors who, by using University resources to support the framing of three Duke students for rape, ended up costing her employer tens of millions of dollars, with more bills still to be paid. Ms. Holloway's unfitness to speak at any university sponsored conference has been amply demonstrated by both her actions in the frameup and her subsequent refusal to accept any responsibility for those actions.

I hope you will see fit to withdraw the invitation to Ms. Holloway and make clear that you do not approve of her unrepented actions and so spare your institution the taint of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax that Ms. Holloway carries wherever she goes.

Very truly yours,


Debrah said...

Very good, RRH!