Monday, January 12, 2009

Keohane's "Root of the Problem"

I have an essay at Minding the Campus, discussing former Duke president Nan Keohane's recent defense of her successor, Richard Brodhead. An excerpt:

"The lacrosse thing was kind of a zinger out of the blue," Keohane recently told the Yale Daily News. "It was the accident of timing that it came on Dick's watch and not mine. I 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."

There's scant evidence, however, that Keohane "had attempted to deal with some of the things that may have been at the root of the problem" during her decade-long tenure as Duke president. Among the problems exposed by the lacrosse case that were either ignored or intensified during Keohane's reign:

- Academic groupthink involving issues of race, class, and gender: Keohane and her dean of faculty, future Group of 88 member William Chafe, had reconfigured faculty lines (in the name of a "diversity" agenda) to hire specialists in race, class, or gender issues; many of the professors with the worst performance in the lacrosse case (Wahneema Lubiano, Kim Curtis, Grant Farred, Houston Baker) joined the faculty during the Keohane administration.

- "Activist" faculty ignoring the rules: To take the most blatant example, future Group of 88 member Anne Allison, joined by 38 colleagues, violated Duke rules by using university funds to pay for an anti-Bush newspaper ad. Allison's cohort received a slap on the wrist---hardly a sufficient deterrent to prevent the Group of 88 from violating the very same rule in the lacrosse case.

- Administrative indifference to student civil liberties: As former Duke student body president Elliot Wolf observed, throughout the last decade, Duke has changed its bulletin to strip rights from students caught up in the campus judicial process.

Read the entire essay here.


Debrah said...

I'm so glad this "Minding the Campus" article was posted.

Always forget to check that website.

This brings back vague memories of the time when Keohane was on the scene. She and Chafe were always doing something together and it was mentioned in the news frequently.

At that time there was no scrutiny and the seeds were just being planted for a campus takeover by the future Gang of 88.

It's almost eerie.

Keohane, like Brodhead, is a pleasant and soft-spoken character.

She's a tall, slim, and an athletic-looking woman. Almost like a female basketball coach. In fact, she could pass for Christian Laettner's mother.

I have no doubt that the same clique---Duke faculty, administration, Mary D.B.T. Semans, and the Trinity Park cheap wine and cocktail circuit crowd, etc.---existed and carried out their synergistic duties around Duke and Durham when Keohane was there.

Now that I think about it, Brodhead and Keohane have almost identical personalities.

And both certainly know "the Duke way".

Anonymous said...

"There's scant evidence, however, that Keohane "had attempted to deal with some of the things that may have been at the root of the problem" during her decade-long tenure as Duke president."

Well maybe if Johnson pulled his
head out of the Lacrosse ASS long
enough, he could find some.

And he calls himself an Historian.

Anonymous said...

Hey, it's only a Blog - -

easy come, easy go --

can't wait for the Dirt
on Sanford.

Wake me when you
reach Few, Flowers,
and Wannamaker.

Kilgo and Craven were
especially good.

Hell, old J.B. Duke himself
held a few secrets.

Harvard must be damn
proud of their progeny.

One Spook said...


This "Minding the Campus" essay ranks as one of the most outstanding pieces you have ever written on this case to date, and that's saying something!

Recognizing word count limitations, there was one detail I have seen you include before that was omitted but I believe is entirely relevant to that essay. At the end of the third to last paragraph, you write: "And Harvard itself has committed $50 million to a "diversity" hiring initiative."

As I recall from at least one of your previous posts, you included the fact that this particular 50 million, coughed up as penance for the sufferring caused by Summers (I recall that one female Harvard professor sustained a case of the vapors), came right on the heels of an already bloated "diversity" budget at Harvard. You had cited what the existing budget was and I recall that number was astonishing in its own right, notwithstanding the "new" 50 million.

As the Yale Daily News report you cited mentions, budget issues are on every administrator's mind these days.

In these tight times, perhaps a good case could be made for the misguided largess that this form of academic welfare represents.

On another note, the post in the immediate past comment thread by "JeffM" on 1/10/09 at 9:00 PM ranks as one the best comments I've ever read here. Beautifully written with surgical precision and clarity of argumentation, it should have top billing in any "DIW Comment Hall of Fame."

Thank you, JeffM!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Giving Duke a pass by assuming that other college boards /administrations would have behaved similarly to how Duke behaved in the lacrosse incident is very questionable . Having been tested and failed is worse than being untested -- and Duke failed miserably in the lacrosse incident. Also, Until Proven Incident ( pages 126- 127 of the soft cover edition) provides 4 recent examples of college athletes being accused of sexual assault. In none of these cases did we see public condemnation of the athletes from professors and or administration officials. Note that all of these cases involved black or hispanic athletes and, where identified, white accusers. And we know that Duke treated the alleged rape of a white Duke coed at a black fraternity party much differently than the lacrosse incident.

Duke's actions/inactions in the lacrosse incident were both reprehensible and unique. I believe no university has ever treated a group of students worse than Duke treated the lacrosse players, particularly the 3 players who were falsely indicted. I believe Duke's situation is unique due to the combination of the following, all of which don't exist concurrently in other universities :

1 ) the strong interdependence between Duke and Durham and their long history of racial /class tensions

2 ) the apparent corruption in Durham 's government , including the DA's office , DPD and the judicial system

3 ) the politically driven biased reporting by the local media

4 ) a BOT heavily influenced by a few ( maybe one ) trustees . Also, the NC Methodist Church elects 24 of the 37 members of Duke's BOT . The Church is politically active and shares the PC ideology of Duke's leaders / professors.

5 ) a weak , and relatively new , President who was sympathetic to the PC narrative that was being created by the faculty, media etc.

6 ) an activist group of hard left professors whose numbers and influence have been growing

While some of the above exist at many colleges, there are very few , if any, colleges where they all exist.

I believe Duke's actions were egregious, purposeful and historically unique.


Anonymous said...

Reading the essay it appears that her view of the "root of the problem" was male attitude towards females.

"The Duke Women’s Initiative, launched by Keohane near the end of her tenure, attempted to address the difficult social climate that some students experience at Duke. Keohane was especially concerned about girls, whom she said were expected to be “effortlessly perfect.” At Duke, she said, women had to be pretty without trying to be pretty; smart, without trying to be smart; funny, but not overbearing. Keohane worried that Duke men did not always respect their female counterparts."

Locomotive Breath said...

As a Duke alum with nine years on campus through three degrees, and as one who lives nearby, and as a former faculty member at another institution, and as a careful observer of my alma mater, I have long said that Keohane left a ticking time bomb for Brodhead. In that sense he is a victim.

When Duke hired her, Keohane was an avowed feminist from the all-women's college Wellesley. It was inevitable and unavoidable that she would try to remake Duke in that image. She couldn't actually get rid of the men but she sure could try to devalue them and eliminate anything she perceived as part of the "male power structure". She accomplished her goal as it's clear that there are plenty of faculty and administrators now on campus who are hostile to men. (Excepting black men.)

I've not had time to do it, but it would be an interesting study to see which Duke President hired the 88. Clearly, few were hired by Brodhead. I'll bet Keohane hired the majority. She's right, it could have happened to her. She had the luck or foresight to leave before her own agenda blew up in her face.

(crossposted at MTC)

Anonymous said...

Is Keohane a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Nice job K.C.!

Anonymous said...

While Broadhead wins on despicability grounds, if one carefully reviews his and Keohane's records, it is plausibly debatable which recent Duke president--Broadhead or Keohane--harmed Duke more.

Debrah said...

An interesting tidbit just came to mind.

In the early '90s, Henry Louis Gates was hired at Duke which everyone celebrated at the time. I was a lot more liberal then and really didn't put any critical thought into the brand of academic mission of Gates and people like Cornel West.

I think Keith Brodie was president of Duke then or perhaps it was the beginning of Keohane's tenure.

I remember being out to dinner at a restaurant in Durham---and they do have lots of good ones!---and overheard two people at the bar talking about how dissatisfied Gates was at Duke.

Soon after, he left for Harvard where they gave him a much better deal.

No doubt, his demands and subsequent departure contributed to Duke's battle toward "diversity" even if they had to hire ill-qualified people like many of the Gang of 88.

And face it, "demand" for anything they want is the bottom line for these extortionists.

Scholarship is way down on the roster.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 1:50 AM.

Are you really President Brodhead

Anonymous said...

Former Duke President Nanerle Keohane deserves to be credited with an assist on the "score" by her team mate Dickie Brodhead. Nice pass, Nanny. What Nanerle and Dickie have in common is the view that the role of an effective leader is to follow their constituent faculty no matter what the direction. Both Nanerle Keohane and Dickie Brodhead believe that the university exists for its faculty , and throwing students under the bus, refusal to discipline faculty who commit egregious wrongs,attempts to intimidate students and the standard fall back position("who knew?") are acceptable, Presidential behaviors. Also, these two subscribe to the Nixonian rule of law, "if the President does it, it isn't illegal".

Thet were meant for each other. Too bad our once great university has sufferred the consequences of their pseudo-leadership.

Ex-prosecutor said...

Calling it the lacrosse "thing" trivializes" the entire matter, and, thus, the misdeeds of Duke and its employees.

I wonder if Nan Keohane would have called it the merry-go-round "thing" if, with all proof to the contrary, she had been accused of raping a child at a playground?

It is obvious that she is utterly unaware or indifferent as to the hell that Duke put the three falsely accused students through.

My experience from college and graduate school is that many professors [K.C. excluded] have neither backbone nor a lick of common sense. She proves it.

Anonymous said...

K.C., is Orin Starn posting again? You have done all of us in higher education a favor by pointing out the real scourge of PC.

What I do not forget is that the city of Durham, aided by people at Duke, tried to railroad three young men into prison on false rape charges. The people involved in the railroading knew the charges were false, but pushed them just the same because of the politics of race/sex.

And what I appreciate about K.C. is that he still performs his academic duties in the spirit of real inquiry, as opposed to the predetermined outcomes and outright propaganda that now passes as "higher thought." He has made a lot of enemies by doing so, but in the end, he has kept his integrity.

Unlike people like Richard Brodhead and Nan Keohane, K.C. does not have to speak in a language shaded with cliches and outright deception. And, unlike Wahneema Lubiano, he has not had a "forthcoming" book for more than 10 years. His work actually is published.

Anonymous said...

Keohane set up the atmosphere for this kind of thing to happen by systematically throwing all the fraternities (mostly white males) off campus. A certain number of minor infractions resulted in Duke taking over the fraternity space.Many of these students landed in the houses off East Campus where the tear down houses were being bought and rennovated by Durhamites who hated having the students in their neighborhood-although the students were there first. As my son said who lived there, if their houses weren't being broken into by Durham "scum", they were being raided by the police because of calls of noise etc. Keohane shut down all partying on campus and threw the partying into a much more dangerous situation. And then she did nothing to stand up for or protect her students from cops like Gottleib. Bob Extrand spent most of his time dealing with kids' cases who were stalked and targetted by Durham cops. I bet they got a kick back for every arrest of a Duke student. Keohane did not have the sense to realize that Duke had a good thing going with the fraternity system on campus as it provided a venue for much safer partying. No partying is totally safe, but partying on campus is safer. And as we well know now, Durham is a very dangerous town. It's not like college kids partying on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill.
It sickens me that the white female student was raped in a black fraternity off campus house where drugs were all over the place, and NOTHING happened to that fraternity. I guess "whatever they did was NOT bad enough."

Jim in San Diego said...

Attorneys who deal with mock juries are amazed at how decisions are often made. In theory, a jury is supposed to evaluate the evidence, and follow the law, to reach a verdict.

In reality, jurors arrive with beliefs which tend to resist evidence which contradicts those beliefs. The stronger the belief, the more evidence it takes to overcome the belief.

At some level, juror beliefs may be so firmly held that no amount of evidence (i.e., reality) could change those beliefs. At least, this is the experience of trial attorneys.

The criteria for selection of professors in some academic departments seems long ago to have departed from demonstrated scholarship involving skills of reading, writing and thinking. Instead, selection begins and sometimes ends with a qualification based on what and how strongly these people hold certain beliefs.

Thus is born a culture invulnerable to reality based on verifiable facts and rational conclusions based on those verifiabale facts.

If this conjecture is correct, there is nothing that can be done to right the PC ship at this point.

Those at the PC helm are basically invulnverable to facts which contradict their beliefs.

So, we get Mr. Brodhead; and, Ms. Keohane; and, Prof Chafe; and, Houston Baker; and, Mr. Farred and, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Jim Peterson

The selection process at Duke, by which individuals were

Anonymous said...

One Spook

Thank you for the compliment. I spent some time on that post.


Anonymous said...

You're all so gullible to believe whatever comes from KC's dimwit brain. Use your own brain to make like a nut and bolt away from him.

KC Johnson doesn't know his behind from the back of his hand. He's an imbecile...for crying out loud! And to think he wears the title of Professor? Ugh!

Stop lying!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Is Keohane a Communist?

1/12/09 10:02 AM

Reading Keohane's remarks about "the root problem" reminded me of something I saw recently on The Soviet Story. Basically it was that Marxism is a war against nature, specifically human nature.

Nan Keohane seems to think that the "root problem" is that young people like to party and that young men like to see scantily-clad women dancing. She wants to wage war on that "root cause".

But the real "root cause" of the Duke Disaster was the ideology that led to the Ad of 88 and the Duke administration's response to it.


Debrah said...

TO 6:50 PM--

That's the funniest Orin Starn impression I've read lately.


Anonymous said...

"Stop lying!

1/12/09 6:50 PM"

Would you be so kind as to tell us what the lies are.

Thanks in advance,

Anonymous said...

"There's scant evidence, however, that Keohane "had attempted to deal with some of the things that may have been at the root of the problem" during her decade-long tenure as Duke president."

I don't know what was at the root of the problem more than irresponsible decisions made by a couple of players.

Gary Packwood said...

Good Boys and Girls on the Good Methodist Ship ...Duke

During the mid 1980's up to our current time many private and a few public universities attempted to change their campus culture by vastly expanding their office of student affairs for the sole purpose of increased programming for the undergraduate good boys and girls if they were on a four year cruise on a ship with an itinerary.

That would be phrase # 1.

As phrase # 1 was folded into the 'campus culture', the diversity faculty would be hired and folded into the campus culture and a new model of higher education would be realized and Duke would become the Harvard of the South...for good boys and girls.

However, two things happened. First, Duke attempted Phase # 1 and Phase # 2 at the same time which created little North Korea or just an old fashion mob depending on who is talking. And, Duke learned early on that varsity athletes don't toe the line and comply with the Cruise Ship mentality...not to mention compliance with an itinerary

In panic mode, a mob management plan was created to enable privileged white male TOP GUNS athletes to fall on their face while engaged in what the mob charged were acts of Moral Turpitude. That strategy was specifically designed to frighten the bad boys into towing the party line or to ...just be gone.

Nifong and Company volunteered to help out apparently only to learn late in the game that Duke athletes were not bad boys at all.

Nothing worked and the mob became desperate just like mobs always do.

And then their little oh so typical socialist 'master plan' was found out by all people...the students...who said...why didn't you tell us about your expectations for us? Thanks
Elliot Wolf.

And at that instant, the faculty ran for cover from the mob.

But good socialists with a 'master plan' just don't care what the people think or what the people want.

And here I thought we always require a Board of Trustees with every member having fiduciary responsibly just so this will not America.

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, in an interview with Charlie Rose, Mary DBT Semans also commented about how horrible the Duke/Durham false rape case was for Brodhead. Seems to be one of the ongoing story lines ...

I had been naive in my belief that university professors and administrators, particularly those from "elite" universitys, were all pretty smart people. The Duke case has shown that there are many that are just plain stupid. After all, it didn't take me too many days (yes, days) to figure out Crystal Mangum was lying... Ok, so maybe they aren't stupid, they're just plain evil.

Debrah said...

Saunders' There's a new DA in town

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 6:50 PM:

Are you the head blogger for the justice4nifong gang? You must be really upset that people did not buy into Nifong's attempted frame up.

gak said...

I am not a member of Liestoppers' bbs forum where this tidbit would be better posted but...

Star LaBlanche at "In Cold Blog" has a 15 part review of CGM's book "The Last Dance for Grace"

use the blog search tool for the above title

Anonymous said...

To 6:50 PM, usually your anonymous posts accusing K.C. of "lying" are way after midnight. Many readers have respectfully requested that you take the time to describe or define the "Lies" and "lying" that you decry and beg to cease. Now that your insomnia seems to be resolved, please be more specific. Or, like many of your colleagues' publications, are the bases for your accusations that K.C. is "lying" "forthcoming"?

Anonymous said...

@ Michael

I see. The root cause of someone's civil and contractual rights being violated is that the someone involved did something legal that offends your moral sensibilities.

Very subtle. You must be one of those people "of conscience" who teach at Duke.


Anonymous said...

What happened to the players was that they were gone after by a corrupt DA and Durham establishment who knew almost from the start that they were innocent and that indeed no crime had been committed.
So, tell us in simple words how the players actions were the root cause of this prolonged, highly destructive false prosecution.

Debrah said...

It's been noted from a few commenters under Barry Saunders' column that theirs have been deleted.

I truly hope that the editors don't start playing that game.

I just left a comment on the column and if what you submit is a fact and your opinions are not profane or libelous, there is no reason why any of them should be deleted.

The N&O obviously wants to prop up Cline.

Anonymous said...

6:50 said:
KC Johnson doesn't know his behind from the back of his hand. He's an imbecile...for crying out loud! And to think he wears the title of Professor? Ugh!

Begging to differ. If KC is an imbecile then you are such a piece of insignificant minutiae that your pea-brain is non-existent. KC has forgotten more intelligent but insignificant data than you ever had pass between your ears. Oh but that you were brave enough to debate him publicly. Your ilk is good at pumping out the rhetoric while cloaked in some sort of shroud of darkness. If you have nerve enough and are willing to back up your so-called "intelligence" with a debate, bring it on. We know you have the mouth. You aren't deserving of taking one of KC's classes much less of challenging his far superior intellect.
Get a grip not a gripe.

Anonymous said...

To 1:28 PM: I, too, was dismayed at Mary D.B.T.Semans' Brodhead supporting view on Charlie Rose's program. However, I believe that she is neither "stupid" nor "evil". Mrs. Semans is a University loyalist who is devoted to Duke, and she simply cannot bring herself to believe that people like Bobby Steele, Dickie Brodhead and Nanny Keohane would purposefully attempt to harm students, and, through them, the university that grew out of her family's wealth. Unfortunately, she believes that Duke is still a place where students are invited to spend evenings in her home, and those of "devoted" faculty members, to discuss prose. Regrettably, she sees only good in "Duke" people. It is unfortunate, because she was once a formidable force for positivity at Duke.

Anonymous said...

"Race to Injustice" Table of Contents

This is posted over on Liestoppers.

Of interest is that Chapter Six, "Black Venus Hottentot Revisited: Gratitous Use of Women of Color's Bodies and the Role of Race and Gender in Campus and Academic Reactions" is authored by Michele Alexander.

What are her topics? They include:

"Preception of Woman of Color's Bodies, Both Historically and in the Era of Flavor of Love and I Love New York"...

"Secual Profiling and the Erotic Labor-Force"...

"Class-, Race-, and Gender-Based Dynamics in Events and Narratives Relating to the Rape Allegations"...

"Possible Equitable or Contractual Claims for Added Protections for Erotic Workers".

So who is Michele Alexander? Why she was named as the poet for the 44th Presidental innauguration that is soon upon us.

One hopes her presentation is one for the ages.

Change indeed.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what was at the root of the problem more than irresponsible decisions made by a couple of players.

Yeah, it was those damned lacrosse players who forced Gottlieb and Himan to lie, who forced Tara Levicy to fabricate "evidence," and forced poor Mikey Nifong to lie to a judge and to everyone else. I guess that these people really had no choice; the players HIRED STRIPPERS AND WERE DRINKING BEER!

Yeah, that's it! Faced with the absolute horror and realization of what these players had done, the real criminals had no choice at all in the matter.

So typical of what I am seeing in Durham. Oh, it was their fault.

Now, had these kids done something that was absolutely reckless, that might have been one thing. But many other student groups had hired strippers, and underage drinking is common around the country.

I would like Michael to tell me how THIS particular demanded the response that we saw. I would like Michael or someone else from Durham to tell me why the lacrosse party required police and prosecutors and some of the DUMC medical staff to lie and break the law. I would think that lying to a grand jury is more serious than having a party where some kids drink beer; I would think that lying to judges and withholding evidence is pretty serious, much more serious than a college party.

So far, no one from Durham or Duke has adequately explained to me as to why the lacrosse party required the kind of law-breaking response we saw from Nifong and others. So far, the lawyers for the plaintiffs have not explained, either. Their view is that they are entitled to break the law because they ARE the law.

Anonymous said...

These idiots at Duke and "Durm" will, soon enough, literally pay through the teeth in multiple civil judgments. Given the screeds from the "6:50 PM" crowd--and their G88 ilk--at this point, I literally just can't wait to hear their squealing once the judgments (and liens) hit. If they don't yet know, they'll soon understand that their taxes "just went up" and endowment "just went down," big time. The only question in my mind is whether the city/county will explore some form of financial receivership.

In any event, this sordid spectacle should get real fun fast.

Anonymous said...


Your analysis of Nan is spot on. Our family has been close to Duke since my in-laws graduated from there many years ago. Our youngest son's first two years at Duke were during Nan's last. We both commented that Nan's war on "on-campus" alcohol usage drove students off campus and to a greater extent escalated the Trinity Park wars. We were glad to see Nan go - Dick did inherit many of Nan's "fixes". He just never recognized the bad hand she dealt him.

Not the mayor

Anonymous said...

"So far, no one from Durham or Duke has adequately
explained to me as to why the lacrosse party required
the kind of law-breaking response we saw from Nifong
and others. So far, the lawyers for the plaintiffs have not
explained, either."

Well gee Bill, has your pal Johnson done a poor job
of explaining also?

Why don't you ask the Great KC why David Evans
was arrested, charged and indicted?

Yes, let's see just how Honest Johnson could be.

Don't bet on an Honest Response, though.

It would really implode the KC Bubble.

Anonymous said...

KC -- Good piece! Nan Keohane's biases were evident during her tenure. How much of a leap is it from identifying men being the "root of the problem" to assuming they are guilty of a brutal, racially motivated gang rape? Once you start from a prejudical premise, it really does not take much convincing of the guilt of people who are, after all, the "root of the problem." Kephane was an awful mistake, one for which Duke continues to pay.

Keohane built the Group of 88, and Brodhead lacked the experience, courage, or competence to manage them. As pointed out by other posters (and comes through clearly in the Yale article), Brodhead saves all his pity for himself, insisting to this day he was the victim. Duke did not need a victim in March 2006, it needed a leader. Brodhead could not do it. Frankly, if he had simply kept his mouth shut Duke would have come out of it with nowhere near the bad situation it now finds itself in.

If these lawsuits develop into discovery, the embarrassment and exposure to Duke will be astronomical -- Lord only knows what the radical faculty, and Administration enablers who refused to hold them accountable for anything, were saying and writing to each other. The continued insistence that they did nothing wrong and the "root of the problem" are solely to blame for everything that happened could get the University killed in court. THe strategy of Duke to keep doubling down on a bad position is baffling (of course, it was baffling that they kept doubling down on Nifong even after it became apparent that he was a nefarious liar, yet they did it anyway).

This story still has several acts left, which is unbelievable.


Anonymous said...

To 8:10
We can only speculate as to why certain players were indicted and not others. The answer to that question lies in the evil hearts of Nifong and his co-conspirators. The one thing we can be certain of is that the reasons were entirely corrupt, since none of the players did one hurtful thing to Mangum; other than laugh at her disabling alcohol problem.

Anonymous said...

A poster or two at TalkLeft and Liestoppers frequently maintained that the root cause of the Duke Lying Hooker Scandal was Nan Keohane. He or she presented a very good case. I was not completely convinced until Keohane just now confessed to the crime herself. Stupidly, unwittingly and flippantly, of course.


Does Keohane even recognize the inconsistency in her thought process? First, she claims to have been working on the root problem during her tenure at Duke, which suggests that a "cure" for the "problem" exists. Second, she said that a similar lying hooker scandal "could have happened on any campus." Thus, she is crowing that she could "cure" a problem that 4,140 public and private universities in the United States have not been able to "cure."


The writer for the Yale Daily News needs a fact-checker ASAP. For example, it is written that Brodhead "ultimately accepted the resignation of the lacrosse coach." WRONG! The article implies that forces beyond Brodhead's control somehow caused Pressler to turn in his resignation. In fact, Brodhead FORCED him to resign.

The most egregious error in the Yale piece was this: "Just 5 days later DNA results showed no evidence linking any member of the team to the accuser, but Nifong did not reveal that information at the time." WRONG! Perhaps the Yale writer would be surprised to find out that it was actually much more insidious. Sure, there was no DNA evidence linking the boys to the false allegations -- but everyone knew that because even Nifong had to admit that -- but Duke and Durham still continued with the lynching. The evidence that Nifong failed to disclose was proof positive that at least 5 non-lacrosse-playing individuals DID have sexual relations with the hooker.

The third obvious error relates to this passage about the Gang of 88 and the publication date of their incendiary ad in the Duke Chronicle: "... the month after the accusations surfaced." WRONG! On March 24, Samiha Khana published the first article about the false accusations in the N&O. The "Listening Ad" was published on April 6. So, it actually took less than 2 weeks for the Duke faculty to form a lynch mob (with the flurry of emails back and forth and faculty meetings that that entails) and turn triple hearsay into an historic attack on their own students.

It is an amazing coincidence that the Yale writer, like the Herald Sun, N&O (save the fabulous Joe Neff) and New York Times writers, made a number of crucial errors that ALL just happen to put Duke, Brodhead and the activist faculty in a better light.


I agree with "ex-prosecutor" that Keohane's language was flippant and the kind of thinking that might be expected of a middle-schooler: "The lacrosse thing was kind of a zinger out of the blue." To my mind, it proves: (1) This is why the "other" studies have to dress up their language -- their ideas are so pedestrian, and (2) Such language minimizes the disaster and points the blame at someone other than Nannny.


Your blog post here is good, K.C., but your essay at Minding the Campus is a tour de force. It really shows how the kind of thinking Keohane implements can lead from Point A to Point B. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention the absolute worst aspect of the Yale Daily News article. The author seems to suggest that Brodhead is due for career advancement, and that Yale President would be the next logical step! Brodhead implies that it wouldn't be a bad idea because "the road leads forward." Of all the stupid ideas I've read about involving the Lying Stripper Scandal, that has to be the worst.

MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

Appeal hearing set

Anonymous said...

Why don't you ask the Great KC why David Evans
was arrested, charged and indicted?

KC, This is your chance to tell these gullible people the truth. Please explain to your followers why Evans was arrested? It's time to stop the lies!

Anonymous said...

I only swing by here occasionally to catch up on this case. It's fascinating to see that there are still people engaged in trying to defend Duke and Durham...well not really. They are only attacking KC and the rest of the folks that saw through the hoax to the maggots in the two institutions. Not having a factual basis for their opinions, it seems that they can only attack.
Duke and Durham face the real possibility of a protracted discovery, public humiliation and financial loss. Some of the folks in the academy may actually be called to account for their actions, their language and their facilitation of the inquisition.

Gary Packwood said...

Why Dave, Reade and Collin?

We have discussed this before to include the fact that all three were out-of-state students whose parents just happen to live in Zip Code areas designated as affluent. We have all asked...What are the odds?

Having three Duke students in the Durham County Jail unable to make 'bail' would have been a real problem for Nifong and that campus mob.

I think Joan Foster has put her finger on the root source problem in her post over on the Liestoppers Board.

Joan said:
These were real kids...not fictional characters for Duke faculty to exploit.
The campus mob did indeed create fictional characters to justify their hate and they wrote about it in several campus publications. And those fictional characters were PRIVILEGED white male athletes. Not necessarily lacrosse athletes ...Just PRIVILEGED white male athletes.

The Mob create 'Straw Men' and the youngsters responded as if their parents - their mothers especially - had been slandered.

How many times have I told young fraternity members - as their fraternity advisor - not to tell employees of the office of student affairs or the local newspaper that they are bringing 'beasts' to their next party. NO WAY. They will actually believe you! Erase that thought from your mind or I will call your mother!!

Real kids. Not fictional characters.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 8:10 PM 1/13/09
To Anonymous 7:14 AM 1/14/09

It is a matter of public record why Dave Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman were arrested. Mike Nifong needed an issue which would interest the black electorate of Durham and get him elected to the office of DA. He knowingly indicted three innocent men, charged them with a crime he knew never happened because he hoped that would win him the support of Durham's black voters.

If you know the real reason Dave Evans was charged, I challenge you to not only tell us nut also present whatever evidence you have.

Are you really Mike Nifong? Or, maybe Victoria Peterson? Whaneema? Karla? Tim Tyson? Maybe Richard Brodhead? Some other inhabitant of La La Land?

Anonymous said...

My apologies, it appears Michele Alexandre the writer of Chapter 6 in "Race to Injustice" that I referenced earlier and Elizabeth Alexander the inaugural poet are not the same person.

One is revisting the writings of another.

Both have or do work at Yale.

And the inauguration poet did indeed write "The Venus Hottentot". Wouldn't it be interesting if she read excepts?

While certainly cut from the same cloth they are indeed two different, though similarly minded people.

My apologies for confusing the two.

The good news is that my error was not egregious. The bad news is instead of one muddle-headed thinker, we have two.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that the little troll either is Justice58 or one of her little friends who post at what is called the "Bat Cave." That is where they rant on that Crystal really was raped, that the players were able to buy off Cooper and others, and that poor Mikey Nifong was done wrong.

I used to get harassing emails from some of them, including one of Nifong's campaign directors, Kim Brummel. They are eaten up with hatred for the players and their families, and I mean eaten up. Justice58 posts at the Justice4Nifong site, the one that insists that Mikey was treated badly by Cooper and that there really was a rape.

We have to get used to the fact that Durham's finest never accepted the decision, as the people there believed they were entitled to a guilty verdict. It is the same mentality in which the NAACP has demanded criminal prosecutions of the two kids who posted anti-Obama statements on the "free speech" wall at NC State.

One would think that the leadership of the NAACP in North Carolina would not be so insecure as to demand state-wide mobilization and new university speech codes just because a couple of clueless students wrote something stupid. But, no, just as they could not contain himself in the Duke lacrosse case, William Barber and his sidekick, the utterly dishonest Al McSurely, are demanding that these kids be thrown into prison.

Here is the NAACP, an organization that did the Ku Klux Klan proud with the way it endorsed a corrupt prosecutor and fabricated "evidence" in the LAX case, now cowering and demanding that the power of the state destroy the lives of two people and their families because of some words they wrote.

This is the mentality of Durham, and we have to understand that no matter how much the evidence screamed out that Crystal, Nifong, Levicy, and the police were lying, Durham always will be the land of the True Believer.

Oh, and the little troll will write that she is not Justice58, but I guarantee you it is her or one of the Cave posters. I recognize their writing style, and especially that of J58. Remember that we are not dealing with honest people, and dishonest people are going to be drawn to a lying sociopath like Michael B. Nifong.

Debrah said...

Modified update

Anonymous said...

I have watched this blog from day one and have for the life of me not figured out why KC Johnson has devoted so much time to the case. His writing and analysis has been detailed but to what end? The devotion to the lacrosse player seems to be a full-time position for Mr. Johnson.

While Mr. Johnson and others on the blog criticize other academics for their particular interest, why isn't it fair to say that his sycophantic devotion to the players in just as weird of an academic pursuit as some of the others that get mocked here?

A deconstruction of Mr. Johnson's writings in this case seem to end in only one place...the 88 professors, Durham Police, Mike Nifong and the rest of the laundry list had it out for the players. Even after all of Mr. Johnson's writings I still have one question - WHERE WAS THIS CONSPIRICY HATCHED? I missed that meeting.

The simpler narrative is that a D.A. with a weak case ran up against a PR machine paid for by some very mad and very rich people. The case became sensational because it benefited the lawyers and ultimately the players financially. That's it in a nutshell.

Can we admit that Duke is not required to field a lacrosse team? They have the right and responsiblity for students who had at times behaved badly. The university does have every right to discipline the students who attend the institution and suppose you couldn't get very many professors at most institutions to say good things about athletes or Greeks for that matter.

This has gone past being obsessive. Not everyone in the history ranks thinks Mr. Johnson is good at what he does. I have read journal articles that have nothing to do with Duke and there is not always praise for his work.

Thank you Mr. Johnson for your devotion put I wish you would move on.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 7.14:

Many thanks for your expression of gratitude. Its sincerity shines through in your comment.

If you no longer have interest in the case, or if (as seems quite clear from your comment) you disagree with some of the blog's arguments, you are, of course, under no obligation to continue reading the blog.

A couple of quick clarifications. You noted, "The devotion to the lacrosse player [sic] seems to be a full-time position for Mr. Johnson."

It may seem that way to you, but I can assure you it isn't so: I not only have had a full-time teaching load at Tel Aviv University last year and this year back at Brooklyn, but I published a lengthy (100pp.) research paper in 2008, have a book on the 1964 election coming out with Cambridge in a couple of months, and am currently finishing up a manuscript on the Cold War for Cambridge.

You wrote, "Not everyone in the history ranks thinks Mr. Johnson is good at what he does. I have read journal articles that have nothing to do with Duke and there is not always praise for his work."

Academics critiquing the works of other academics in review essays--who has ever heard of such a thing?! That said, I'll allow my record (two books with Harvard, two more with Cambridge, another book under contract with Cambridge, four co-edited volumes with W.W. Norton) to speak for itself in terms of quality.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 8:10 PM 1/13/09
To Anonymous 7:14 AM 1/14/09

Every post you make elicits the sounds of cash registers in my mind.

The LaCrosse team is going to be able to buy North Carolina by the time this is over. They'll make Manchester United FC look like indigents. They'll be wealthier than some sovereign states.

Please continue your contributions.

Jim in San Diego said...

To the 7:14


You sound literate, although your use in a few paragraphs of both the words "deconstruction" and "narrative" is worrisome.

Some of us would appreciate your views on the substance of the rape hoax.

The focus of interest here is not the lacrosse players, per se. It is the injustice done towards three innocent students by those with special responsibility not to be unjust to them.

No one here challenges the propriety of discipling students who misbehave. That of course is not the issue.

Many of us do have a problem, however, with teachers and administrators who openly assert that the presumption of innocence is "silly sentimentalism" (Houston Baker); that "white innocence is black guilt" (Wahneema); and, "No" to due process (Karla Holloway), and get away with it, until next time.

The story lives on, instead of moving on, because all the conditions which created the injustice remain in place.

Those of us with white, male children, have unexpectedly learned we have much to fear from a world of injustice. That world appears to include those we have a right to expect will not be unjust - including especially their teachers and school administrators.

It does not appear many of those who participated in the figurative lynching have either (a) learned a lesson from the experience, or (b) been constrained by those with responsibility, such as the school administration.

Therefore, many of us are not at a place from which we wish to be "moving on".

Anyway, what is your view of these issues? I for one would particularly appreciate hearing how you would feel today if the three innocent students had been black, and the accuser white?

Thank you in advance for any time you choose to spend here.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

To follow up on K.C.'s latest comments, indeed academe is going to have a diverse array of opinions of what is good and what is not good. All of us have been on the end of praise and criticism is we venture into academic writing, and K.C. tends to be more prolific than most people out there in this business.

(I daresay that if he were at Frostburg State, where I teach, he would own our university academic award. As one who does publish academically on a regular basis, I can say that I envy his prolific work that also is high-quality.)

Furthermore, after reading garbage from journals like Social Text, which is published by (What else?) Duke University, and after seeing Duke University Press become a vanity press for hard-left faculty members who apparently cannot publish anywhere else, I also will say that there is a huge double standard at Duke (and probably elsewhere in the "elite" university category).

I am familiar with the publishing standards for Duke's economics department, and they are very, very high. It is hard to get tenure in that department; one cannot have a "forthcoming" book for more than a decade, and one certainly would not receive academic credit for "Bodies of Evidence" or anything published in Social Text. (This journal is the subject of one of the more hilarious academic hoaxes, as more than a decade ago, Alan Sokal of NYU purposely wrote a piece of jibberish to see if it could be published, and Social Text did the honors. Enough said.)

As K.C. and Stuart said in their book, Duke during the presidency of Nan Keohane decided to become famous by beefing up their "alternative studies" areas. That meant bringing in people like Houston Baker and Grant Farred and others. Duke also brought became dominated by Stanley Fish, who made sure that his cronies were hired.

Yes, it made Duke famous, but it also meant that its new faculty members of this "postmodern" genre were the types who were professionally disaffected not only with Duke (which would be seen as "eternally racist"), but with higher education in general. Their job, as they saw it, was to run to the barricades whenever possible and also to remake the university into a huge re-education camp where some (privileged) students would be browbeaten into submission or self-hatred.

Also, the academic margins on which they have operated run from the silly to the awful. These are people who would try to find sexual imagery in "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" or declare that the falling snow was a symbol of racism.

It hardly surprises me that these were the people who gave us the infamous "We're Listening" ad, and then lied about how it originated. These are people who take no responsibility for any of their actions. They are like little children who eternally are throwing fits and drawing attention to themselves, and then go into a rage when the rest of us think they are acting like children.

So, when confronted by an adult like K.C., they react as they always have: by throwing more fits.

Anonymous said...


I second the comments expressed by Mr. Peterson in his 8:16 posting. Colleges do exercise the right (and should) to discipline those students in violation of the code of conduct that is established. However, that code needs to be evenly enforced (which it was not in the case of Duke - the basketball team had had stripper parties and underage drinking parties with no repercussions). Students also have the right to have the basic laws of this country followed by their college administrators and teachers. This was not done in the lacrosse case. FERPA was ignored, the lacrosse athletes were advised by an administrator who was also an attorney that they should not consult their parents, and teachers were allowed (without consequence) to defame students and alter grades. And for all this the parents were paying a large tuition bill. Although the administration and faculty have a Code of Conduct (faculty handbook)the administration of Duke has indicated that it does not amount to much.
As the parent of four college students (three males and three who were college athletes) I can say without equivocation that the framing of the three students for something that never occurred and the willingness of a university to aid and abet a rogue prosecutor and his staff, a corrupt police department, as well as a medical institution who failed to follow its own established medical procedures by having someone not qualified (Tara Levicy) and with an ax to grind ("I have never met a woman who claimed that she was raped who was not")has shaken my faith in the systems of this country. To stand by and do nothing in the face of injustice is not acceptable. Though many of us are not in a position to do much, I believe strongly that KC Johnson, Liestoppers, JinC, and the various blog contributors have done much to keep the pressure on those who can affect a change. Change must occur in North Carolina to ensure that such a situation cannot occur again and to serve as a wake-up to other institutions that they need to seriously consider not only their academic and student codes of conduct but the responsibility of the university toward its students, their parents (who after all foot the bill), and the relationship between campus and the local constabulary.

unbekannte said...

To Anonymous 7:14 PM 1/14/09

"The simpler narrative is that a D.A. with a weak case ran up against a PR machine paid for by some very mad and very rich people. The case became sensational because it benefited the lawyers and ultimately the players financially. That's it in a nutshell."

The case "in a nutshell" is that although Mike Nifong had NO case, he prosecuted three innocent men. This is all a matter of public record. Nifong wanted an issue which would endear him to Durham's racist black leaders. Without their support, without the votes of Durham's black electorate, he was going to lose the election and, quite likely, his job in the DA's office.

The bully in Mike Nifong believed no one could stand up to him. The corrupt prosecutor in him believed no one would challenge his illegal, unconstitutional methods. He believed he was too big, too important to fight and he was wrong. Now, like a coward, he is scrambling to avoid having to defend himself. I would also point out that neither the redoubtable(sarcasm smiley) Wendy Murphy nor the redoubtable(another sarcasm smiley) Nancy Grace, who once vigorously supported Nifong, are supporting him now.

I challenge you to explain the DNA evidence. DNA on cgm did not match any member of the Lacrosse team. The male DNA from cgm was from multiple other males. In a rape case, where the DNA on a victim does not match the accused but does match another male, it means the accused is not the rapist. If, as Mr. Bill Anderson suspects, you are the person I have called injustice58 your response will be to go ask Crystal. cgm, since the media event announcing the publication of her memoir (according to Amazon the 654,356th most popular book according to sales) cgm has refused to address the inconsistencies in her case.

Anonymous said...

Johnson's silence on the facts
of David Evans' arrest and indictment
is sickening.

Anonymous said...

Jim in San Diego:

Re: 7:14 poster

You can dress a troll up, put some makeup on him and have him do the Charleston, but.......he's still a troll.


kcjohnson9 said...

To the 9.27:

I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism: I have frequently written about how, as with Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, Nifong decided to indict Dave Evans even though the "minister of justice" had no evidence upon which to base his claim. How that constitutes "silence" on my part is not at all clear to me.

But don't take my word on the Evans matter: I would urge you to consult the attorney general's report on the matter. You can find the link on the side of the blog.

Anonymous said...

It amazes me to see so many heads buried in the sand. I hope you're prepared to wait until infinity before Durham gives up any money. You'd best take Barry Saunders up on his offer. Durham will give up nothing. You outsiders haven't a clue about the people of Durham. You haven't seen tough. Get ready to wait until infinity.

Sorry, but I haven't even heard of a "Bat Cave". Not worth arguing about either. Ironic tho one would accuse someone of the very things you're trying to fight. Nevertheless, you shouldn't be so gullible to believe all that is spewed from KC Johnson's mouth. He can't answer a poster's simple question concerning Evans. He just dances around it. Did not any of you pick up on it? Figures. SMH.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 2.20:

I'd urge you to reread my comment--I didn't "dance" around the question, I pointed out that its premise (that I had somehow been "silent" about the Evans indictment) was factually untrue.

That the anonymous commenter chose not to examine what I've written about the Evans indictment is unfortunate. That said, I pointed to the AG's report, based on a comprehensive inquiry, which concluded that no evidence existed to justify the Evans indictment.

As to the assertion that "Durham will give up nothing": I would hope that--based on your claimed insight into "the people of Durham"--you are not asserting that the city would refuse to pay a judgment rendered by a federal jury. But, as so much of this case has provided a mirror image of the 1950s/1960s South, I suppose a fitting end would be the Durham political leadership imitating George Wallace in defying a federal court order.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, people of Durham tend to be "tough," all right, especially on each other. It seems that almost every day, there is another murder there, and the papers are filled with robberies and other crimes.

I guess that the poster is correct in that a Durham jury would have been "tough" on the boys. Granted, that would have meant that the jurors would have ignored the evidence, but the people of Durham have been doing that for the past few years, and given Chan Hall's statement, my sense is that Durhamites believed there should be a conviction, period.

Remember that in his email to Tricia Dowd, the execrable Houston A. Baker mockingly asked, "Who cares?" if there had been a rape or not. Indeed, Durham residents knew there was no rape, but they wanted a conviction, and they were determined to get it, which is why we saw the expressions of rage when Roy Cooper pulled the plug on this fraud.

Accusing K.C. of "lying" about the indictment of David Evans is a real howler. The real liars were Michael B. Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Ben Himan, Mark Gottlieb, Tara Levicy and the Durham politicians.

So, drink up, Durham! You can be proud of these lying sociopaths. You can be proud that you tried to railroad innocent people and thought you could get away with it.

If you lose in federal court, pay up, and stop complaining. You asked for this, after all. In fact, you demanded it.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why anyone entertains questions or comments from someone who can do nothing but make childish, hateful taunts against this blog's author or ridiculous pontifications about themselves or Durham.

I understand reasonable discussion and debate but just arguing with a loon strikes me as a waste of time.

Just thinking with my fingers.

Anonymous said...

Can we admit that Duke is not required to field a lacrosse team? They have the right and responsiblity for students who had at times behaved badly. The university does have every right to discipline the students who attend the institution and suppose you couldn't get very many professors at most institutions to say good things about athletes or Greeks for that matter.
True, Duke is not required to have a LAX team, or a football team (well, they don't anyway), or a basketball team, but they do. They are not required to have an ethical, fair, and honest faculty and administration. They don't. Nuff said.

IF you have some information on why Dave Evans, let's hear it. You imply that you have knowledge that KC has and chooses to ignore. Well, let's have it. Nuff said.

Okay, a rape occurred. In the mind of a disturbed young woman, it happened. It is possible that one of the several men whose DNA was found inside her did rape her. Unfortunately for the angry studies supporters, it wasn't a LAX player. The fact that she fabricated rape before shot holes in their theories so the only chance they had to vent their anger was to bang the pots and demand castration. How about a labotomy? Nuff said.
As far as you anti-KC posters, you make statements questioning his character and characterizations, put up or shut up. KC meticulously documents everything. Please don't let the facts get in the way of your rantings. When facts dispute your philosophical politics, rather than present rational arguments, you attack. Nuff said.

Justice58. Who was the 58th signer of the Listening Statement? Maybe it's time to actually listen instead of ranting and raving. Nuff said.

Why Dave, Colin, and Reade? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Robin Hood tried to be alive and well. Oh the "honesty" and "justice" of the crowd that supported CGM. It was more about "robbin" and getting the money in the "hood". Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

"IF you have some information on why Dave Evans,
let's hear it. You imply that you have knowledge that KC has and chooses to ignore. Well, let's have it. Nuff said."

Johnson has failed the test.

Jim in San Diego said...

re: Why we should try to engage the "trolls"


Some here view with contempt time wasted on attempting to engage some inarticulate posters who say stupid things, and move on.

You are probably correct that, statistically, we have small chance to educate or learn from most of these people. Nevertheless, the effort should be made, IMHO.

We must find a way to bridge the communications chasm that exists. A whole swath of academia appears to be substituting truth finding based on verifiable facts with faith based dogma.

This is no small thing. It is anti intellectual and a threat to us all. Ask Colin, Reade, and Dave.

The cost is small - The time it takes to make a civil invitation on the blog.

If a contributor here is merely inarticulate or uninformed, but not ill-willed. we have a chance.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

I would love to hear what KC thinks about the book, Race to Injustice, cited above.

Gary Packwood said...

Effortless Perfection

It was President Nan Keohane who brought the phrase 'Effortless Perfection' to Duke as a way to describe how young Duke Women were expected to behave.

I remember thinking at the time that it was going to be interesting to see who the young women on campus were going to vilify for creating the expectation of Effortless Perfection. It sure wasn't going to be their parents...who were paying the bills!

It was also interesting to watch how this phrase gained traction since the phrase was used decades before to describe expectations of the business community towards new employees who were recent graduates of elite universities...both young men and women.

And vilify they did. Ms. Emily Grey wrote an article for the Duke Magazine five years ago this month and it is worth the time to read.

Now the phrase Effortless Perfection has taken on wings (New and Improved) and is used to explain why young women in universities don't study sciences and math; don't participate in varsity sports as we expected they would back in the 1970's and of course, is the root source justification for the history-of-white-men-as-feral-beasts-with-uncontrollable-lusts-for-violent-assaults-on-innocent-maidens.

And I can find no evidence that Nan Keohane was ever a member of the Marketing faculty at the Duke Fuqua School of Business.


kcjohnson9 said...

To the 1.43:

I've ordered the new book and will review it as soon as I've read it.

Anonymous said...

The troll (or troll-like excresence) which has been bothering the blog these few days past seems to be stuck at the "Did too! Did not!" level of rhetorical development.

But, even the more apparently learned of the Hoax defenders don't seem able to present a respectable argument (an argument that doesn't fail as one is reading it).

This blog and it's point of view have been here and open to all criticisms for some considerable time. Suggestions that critical arguments have been suppressed simply don't hold up. One reads, in other places, critiques already aired here. Once again indicating that suppression has not been happening.

Presumably, this is why the troll does not specify.

The current troll would be my recommendation for Pet Troll. We can feed it with little morsels of attention and even give it a place to lay it's little head. Sure, it bites, but it doesn't draw blood. It's a nice, safe indoor troll. Almost lovable, in a smarmy kind of way.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, KC.

Looking at the CVs of some of the chapter authors of Race to Injustice, it looks like they are ideological soulmates of the Duke professors who caused the disasters. For instance, Sharon Rush and Michelle S. Jacobs.

If the book says what I predict it says, I hope you will not show mercy on it.


Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 1/15/09 9:27 AM

"Johnson's silence on the facts
of David Evans' arrest and indictment
is sickening."

Your silence on the very same issue is gross, yellow bellied cowardice. You have not told anyone what you know. If you are not a snivelling coward, who actually knows nothing, then tell us about "David Evans' arrest and indictment".

To Anonymous 1/16/09 9:26 AM

" 'IF you have some information on why Dave Evans,
let's hear it. You imply that you have knowledge that KC has and chooses to ignore. Well, let's have it. Nuff said.'

Johnson has failed the test."

You are the one making the allegation. It is incumbent upon you to prove the allegation. Why are you so chicken livered afraid of having to prove your case?

Anonymous said...

Given Johnson can hardly make it through
a sentence without ginning and distorting
and smearing and fraudulently misrepresenting
the facts about Duke and Durham and
"The Lacrosse"-- he does make one nauseous-
"anonymous" admits to having read most of his
inventions- certainly the relevant fictions regarding
the question, which Johnson continues to dodge.

Why was David Fokker Evans
indicted by the Grand Jury?

What was the evidence the Lacrosse Crowd
wishes for you to never know?

All ponzi schemes eventually collapse.
These exponentially growing lies tossed with
impunity here in Wonderland will meet the same fate.

If you have your money on Johnson, you have
fair warning to do your own thorough due diligence.

Debrah said...

Lately, faculty and faculty hopefuls seem to be attempting to increase the volume of their already blatant indoctrination methods and the stifling of free speech.


Support is strong for UNC hate-crime policy

Jan 16, 2009

CHAPEL HILL -- Students, university employees and representatives of civil rights organizations speaking at a public forum on Thursday mostly supported the adoption of a UNC system policy addressing hate crimes, as well as the institution of diversity training for first-year students.

However, e-mails sent to the UNC Study Commission to Review Student Codes of Conduct as They Relate to Hate Crimes show that the issue is complex and emotional for many citizens.

Frank Sturges, a UNC Chapel Hill senior, urged members of the study commission to recommend adoption of a hate-crime policy and the institution of diversity training. He said the actions together would make campuses more appealing to minority students by improving the all-around environment of each institution.

"I know from my four years at UNC that the UNC system is committed to providing the best education possible for its students," said Sturges, who is co-director of Carolina United, a weeklong diversity conference. "A lot of this education comes outside the classroom."

Hunter Corn, chairman of the Equality N.C. board of directors, framed his support for a policy by reading comments left on an online forum maintained by the conservative John Locke Foundation. A forum administrator responded to abusive comments posted by a user by stating that messages should reflect the tone that writers would use to address a boss or co-worker.

"When the John Locke Foundation and Equality N.C. are on the same page, we should take notice," Corn said.

In addition to the racist comments spray-painted in the N.C. State University Free Expression Tunnel after President-elect Barack Obama's victory in November -- the incident that led to system President Erskine Bowles forming this commission -- Corn cited other problems, including a toilet paper noose at N.C. State that was dismissed as a prank. Corn challenged UNC to "step up to its duty" of ensuring a learning environment free of intimidation.

The seven people speaking at the forum all condemned the comments scrawled in the Free Expression Tunnel, but not everyone thinks the incident calls for a new university policy. Katie Parker, legal director for the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the anti-Obama messages were instances of free speech protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU believes that "speech codes" adopted by state-run universities are an example of censorship, she said.

Parker pointed to the N.C. State students who rallied against the negative comments as a better approach to silencing hate speech.

"That is the cure," she said. "To facilitate discussion."

The more than two dozen e-mails on the topic demonstrated a broad range of ideas about the commission's charge to determine whether a hate crime policy and diversity training are necessary within the university system. Several citizens wrote that the university doesn't have standing to regulate free speech, while others worried about any individual or group having the power to define proper and improper speech.

"It is important to remember that the students wrote those comments in a free speech tunnel and had every right to express their opinions [no matter how shameful they may have been]," wrote Jessica Mattison, a UNC Chapel Hill student. "It is unfair to impose this requirement on every student in the state just because of the actions of two ignorant people."

The study group is expected to make its recommendations to Bowles by the end of March.


And this same op-ed by this presumptuous little guy who is still wet behind the ears has become Exhibit A as to how local media control what people read.

I want everyone to know that under this guy's nauseatingly tendentious column that, of course, the N&O published gleefully, there were no less than 33 comments that were erased two days ago.

These comments represented a very strong and reasoned debate and a clear rebuttal to Ghoshal's self-serving silliness and biased-to-the-max "statistics".

None of them were worthy of deletion, except that now when this little guy's work is googled, you will see no objections or any degree of challenge to this freeze-dried sickness.

I spoke by phone to about 8 people at the N&O about this act taken by one of their employees who works in the online division.

All of the excuses have been made; however, the bottom line is that they could not abide a clear and strong case against their own beliefs.

I'm thinking about devoting an entire segment on this silly op-ed and invite a debate.

One that will not be hosted using gestapo tactics.

If the N&O's online becomes as tainted with bias and one-sided PC as their editorial pages, they'll soon be dead in the water as an enterprise.

kcjohnson9 said...

A quick note to close out this thread:

I will no longer clear any additional anonymous comments that claim "secret" and heretofore unrevealed evidence in a case. Such claims were absurd in mid-2006; by this stage, given the full revelations of the evidence in the AG's report and in Nifong's ethics trial, they are comparable to assertions that UFOs have been spotted in Durham.

If the two anonymous commenters who have made such claims choose to present actual evidence, for which they have actual proof, and choose to do so in their own names, I will of course clear the comments.

Anonymous said...

@ 4:47

The only thing you have said to date that has any semblance of sense is your admission that you are nauseous. You probably meant "nauseated," but, by accident, you found the precisely appropriate self-description.


unbekannte said...

To Anonymous 1/16/09 9:26 AM

All the evidence in the Lacrosse case would come out if the defendants in the current lawsuits would defend the suits instead of trying to duck them.

Would you give your evidence under oath, once the lawsuits go forward to discovery. My bet is you are too much of a sniveling coward to face the truth about the case.

Anonymous said...

The 1/14/09 7:14 pm states:

“The simpler narrative is that a D.A. with a weak case ran up against a PR machine paid for by some very mad and very rich people. The case became sensational because it benefited the lawyers and ultimately the players financially. That's it in a nutshell.”

You are right. That is a “simpler narrative.” Unfortunately, “the simpler narrative” is not consistent with the information known publicly.

As you know, the “case became sensational” when substantially all of the information was being fed to reporters by the prosecution. Coverage began when the players reported to comply with the NTO and walked into a media ambush. Addison’s statements followed the next day. The media frenzy erupted after the N&O’s interview with Crystal. This interview transformed the case into a racially-motivated attack. Nifong reinforced this narrative with inflammatory and false statements made in dozens of interviews. The media seized on this narrative, but in general lost interest once the case fell apart. The “sensational” coverage abated. There has been minimal reporting since Nifong’s jail term.

Nifong’s need to win the election to retain his job provides a credible explanation of why he pursued a “weak case” (or a case with “no credible evidence”). The disciplinary commission reached this conclusion at Nifong’s disbarment hearing. “The case became sensational” because it benefited Nifong. As you know, Nifong claimed that he received a million dollars of free publicity through his interviews.

This was not just “a D.A. with a weak case.” The DPD played a major role. Nifong’s motivation does not explain why the DPD and others supported this effort.

As you know, much of the discovery file has been made public through defense filings, the AG’s summary report, Nifong’s disbarment and criminal contempt hearings, the presentation to the Whichard commission, and reports from journalists who claimed to have reviewed the entire discovery file (e.g., Dan Abrams, Joe Neff and Duff Wilson). Wilson and the NY Times can scarcely be described as sympathetic to the players.

The critical results of the DPD’s investigation have been released, including the DNA reports, identification procedures, Himan’s typewritten report, any handwritten notes he had preserved and Gottlieb’s June 2006 report (composed from memory and seen as an attempt to prop up the case).

This information supports the AG’s conclusion: there was “no credible evidence” that the crimes alleged had occurred. Nifong pursued a case supported only by Crystal’s inconsistent accusations (each version of which contradicted other versions and all of which were contradicted by other evidence), statements from a SANE-in-training (whose statements were not supported by medical evidence) and identifications from a fatally flawed identification process in which Crystal identified four of her three alleged attackers. (The non-exclusion of Evans from certain DNA tests was not considered by the AG as significant; transference from other items in his trash was viewed as a more likely explanation due to other evidence.)

Contrary to the explanation advanced by Durham and Duke, the publicly-available evidence does not support the claim that all of the “errors” in this case were Nifong’s fault. Others played major roles. Himan and Gottlieb were the only witnesses to testify before either of the grand juries that handed down the indictments. Senior officers ceded responsibility for the investigation to Nifong. The DPD investigation was already seriously off-track long before Nifong became involved.

The DPD faux investigation belies the claim that Nifong and the DPD merely pursued a “weak case” based on their desire to seek “justice” for the accuser. Nifong claims that he “believed” the accuser—even though he never discussed the accusation with her.

One would suppose that an investigation of a “weak case” would be more extensive than for an open and shut case. Investigators had no smoking gun with which to prove the charges, yet they did little to uncover other evidence.

For example, based on DPD reports, they failed to:

• Reconcile critical differences between the different versions of the accuser’s story.
• Search the Buchanan residence for more than two days after the accusation was received.
• Interview many relevant witnesses before the initial indictments (e.g., anyone from Durham Access, any attending medical personnel—except Levicy—from DUMC or UNC Hospital, the responding DPD officers, DUPD officers initially involved, any neighbors, and the Kroger guard who called the DPD).
• Obtain evidence of which they had been made aware (e.g., the photographs the captains had discussed in their statements—some of which had been published in the media—and Seligmann’s alibi evidence).
• Analyze promptly evidence they had obtained through search warrants (e.g., Crystal’s cell phone, and the captains’ cell phones, e-mail accounts and computers).
• Reconcile Crystal’s identifications with evidence that some of the players she identified did not attend the party.
• Obtain a written statement from Crystal until April 6—23 days after the alleged attack—despite at least three prior meetings with her.
• Ask Kim to make identifications until May 11, despite Crystal’s failure to provide credible descriptions and make identifications on March 16 and March 21.
• Ask Crystal’s driver what time he had arrived at the house to establish a timeline.
• Reconcile critical inconsistencies between the written statements of Crystal and Kim (e.g., Crystal’s claim that the dancers had been violently separated).
• Reconcile Levicy’s statements with the medical reports on which those statements should have been based.
• Question any of the indicted players in an attempt to have one turn on the others.

The DPD’s failure to conduct a credible investigation cannot be explained merely as human error. Virtually every phase of this investigation was deeply flawed.

In my opinion, this complete failure supports the allegation that the DPD joined with Nifong in an attempt to frame three young men for a crime they knew had never occurred. The failure of their supervisors to properly oversee their actions in a highly publicized case belies the explanation that rogue or incompetent investigators led by a “rogue” DA abused their authority. Moreover, the DPD’s failure to discipline any officers for their roles in this case can be seen to have validated their actions.

I recognize that investigation is required to substantiate this allegation. We do not yet know the answer to Councilman Brown’s question: “Why did three Durham residents have to go to Raleigh…to get justice?” As you know, Durham has resisted an investigation of the DPD’s activities.

The inability to explain the DPD’s total support for an overzealous (or “rogue”) prosecutor is the reason many have proposed conspiracy theories. I am willing to consider other explanations, but any explanation must be consistent with available evidence.

Your “simpler narrative” fails that test.


Anonymous said...

"Free Expression Tunnel" -- That just tickles my funny bone.

While the country is going bankrupt and endowment values are declining by fourths, these clowns want to spend money on diversity training for all incoming freshmen.

How can these people, and Keohane, look themselves in the mirror?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @12:46 AM said...
"Free Expression Tunnel" -- That just tickles my funny bone.

Carpal "Tunnel" Syndrome?