Monday, April 06, 2009

March Events in the Case

A major theme of this blog has been the importance of ethics in the legal profession. In late March, the Volokh Conspiracy, the nation’s leading legal blog, invited Prof. Richard Painter, to guest blog about his new book, Getting the Government America Deserves: How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference. Between 2005 and 2007, as White House Associate Counsel, Painter had served as the chief ethics lawyer for the President, White House employees, and senior nominees to Senate-confirmed positions in the Executive Branch.

The Painter posts were wide-ranging, covering matters from torture to the ethical dangers of the White House Office of Political Affairs. Painter also explained his principal role simply: “Much of the work of an ethics lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, is giving a client advice that amounts to common sense.”

This definition of legal ethics helps illuminate ex-DA Nifong’s misconduct in the lacrosse case. It was common sense not to order the police to run an additional lineup that violated their own procedures; or to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence; or to make dozens of inflammatory public statements. But Nifong, of course, lacked an ethical core.

Other events from March:

  • In elections for Duke’s Academic Council, Group of 88 members dominated in contests from the Humanities departments, while Anne (“Group of 88 for Credit”) Allison captured a slot on the Social Sciences list.
  • Several high-profile members of the Group of 88—the faculty members who got a race-related issue in their own backyard so spectacularly wrong—convened a high-profile conference on . . . race in America. The party line predominated—down to the refusal to allow taping of the event, lest an audience outside Duke’s campus walls be exposed to the Group’s extremist ideas.*
  • At the conference, Group member Sally Deutsch maintained that the Group’s ad—for which signatures were solicited describing it as “about the lacrosse team incident”—denied that the ad referred “to the rape accusation and Buchanan Blvd.”
  • Wahneema Lubiano, scheduled to moderate a panel entitled, “Race, Gender and Sexuality: Intersections on Multiple Dimensions,” was a no-show at the conference, claiming a previous commitment in Prague.
  • Michael Burch, a local man whose alleged sexual assault of a (white) Duke student didn’t arouse a peep from the Group of 88, pled guilty—after being charges with a second sexual assault while he was out on bail. Newsday ran an interview with Burch’s victim, Katie Rouse, but ignored the wildly disparate responses to the Burch attack and the lacrosse case from the Duke faculty and administration.
  • In an editorial for a small suburban paper in Boston (the only type of publication that will still print her ruminations?), Wendy Murphy demanded release of “thousands of pages [that] have been withheld from public view”—without mentioning that the only elements of the case file “withheld from public view” were Crystal Mangum’s substantial psychological files.
  • Roy Cooper, one of the heroes of the case, took a small lead over incumbent GOP senator Richard Burr, in a possible battle for Burr’s seat. The N&O reported that Cooper is seriously considering making a bid.
  • The lacrosse case got a mention in John Grisham’s latest novel.
  • William Bowen continues to defend his widely discredited report on the administration’s initial response to the case—a document that faulted the administration not for anything that would cost Duke millions of dollars in settlements and legal fees, but for being insufficiently sensitive to “diversity.”

Finally: While I realize it’s no match for the perpetually forthcoming Like Being Mugged by a Metaphor, my latest book was published March 31 by Cambridge University Press. The book, an analysis of the 1964 presidential campaign, has its website here; the amazon link is here.

[Update, Monday, 6.04pm: A commenter passes along the news that Duke allowed NPR to broadcast brief excerpts of the conference--raising the question of whether Group members engaged in ideological screening in deciding who could and could not tape the event. The commenter also passes along the more welcome news that Group organizers have relented and allowed the posting of the conference at itunes. No word yet on when the "Shut Up and Teach" forum will be posted to the itunes site; a search indicated no presence of the panel.]


Anonymous said...

Once again, thank you for the update. It serves as a reminder just how much the frame/hoax still impacts academia, group think, popular culture, and politics in this country. One hopes that next month's summary will include a court ruling allowing for discovery to proceed. Also, congratulations on your new book!

bill anderson said...

Well, K.C., I guess that unless your latest book is held back from publication for another dozen years, it just will not match the magnificence of Mugged by a Metaphor.

Now, as I see it, the real reason this great volume of through from this Really Great Thinker is being held back is that Lubiano and her publisher (Duke University Press?) are trying to build up the suspense. Yes, that must be it.

The only thing that might compare is the buildup that came before the movie "Apocalypse Now," which was delayed so many times that the critics began to call it "Apocalypse When?". Thus, I have a new title for Lubiano's book: (Waiting to be) Mugged by a Metaphor.

Anonymous said...

I dont see where comments about a Roy Cooper lead in some future election is part of any March review of the Duke case. Maybe you can explain how YOUR politics embraces the update?

Label me a blog hooligan but not interested in anyones politics.

Anonymous said...

KC: Many thanks for continuing to keep us updated on the events and personalities surrounding the lacrosse fiasco and the subsequent downfall of Duke University's reputation. Also appreciated is the chronicle of the extents to which Duke's Board feels it must go to protect the egos of Bobby Steel and Dickie Brodhead.

Re: "professor" Lubiano's perpetually "forthcoming" book, my guess is that it will forever be "forthcoming" because even the laughably mediocre Duke University Press is embarrassed to be asasociated with this pseudo- academician. Lubiano has used "swagger" , inuendo , false allegations, threats and argumentative racism to mask her total lack of scholarly ability. She is the epitome of Stanley Fish's view of a great university educator.

How warped is this picture?

Debrah said...

Excellent William!

Actually, Wahneema is no doubt a hit in Prague.

People there are still virgins with respect to the race/class/gender field of the academy.

Wahneema delivers them fresh new perspectives on how they, too, can perform lock-down on their universities' administrations.

In her latest Stanley Crouch get-up, Wahneema is an exotic and brilliant American with much to tell.

No justice, no peace said...

Dr. Johnson, I just ordered your book on LBJ and look forward to reading it. Having just spent a few days in Fredericksburg with a side-trip over to the LBJ ranch my interest is elevated.

Whoever claimed the price of the book was $70 must have been a Klan of 88'er. It is $20 on Amazon and included free shipping.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, KC.

I agree that Cooper is a hero of this case. He could have taken a much easier option, with much less risk to his own career. But he opted to do the right thing.

It is sad that some of the most culpable members of the G88 have advanced in their professions, despite their rush to judgment, and subsequent refusal to apologize to the many people they wronged.

I am happy to know that some of the good guys are doing well also.


Anonymous said...

I agree that Cooper is a hero of this case. He could have taken a much easier option, with much less risk to his own career. But he opted to do the right thing.

An easier option? He opted to do the right thing?

You mean the "right thing" in the eyes of supporters of the accused? How about the truth?

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 1.38:

Given Cooper's position as a Democrat in NC--a state in which any Dem needs strong support from black voters--the easiest thing for him to have done would have been to have dismissed the case because of Nifong's misconduct, or to have simply said that evidence didn't exist to sustain the charges.

To, instead, have authorized a full investigation--and then to have made a public declaration of innocence, revealing the truth that the investigation established--took considerable courage.

Anonymous said...

Is Deutsch a Communist?

Anonymous said...

To: Anonymous @ 8:29

Right. Politics had nothing to do with the Duke Lying Hooker Hoax! Only that most people believe that Nifong did what he did to get elected to political office by the African-American community in Durham. Only that the Hoax got a major boost because Mayor Bell and City Manager Patrick Baker helped to cover up the flaws in the Hoax (e.g., the inconsistencies in Mangum's stories). Only that Judges elected by Durham County residents allowed Nifong to run roughshod over the rights of the Duke students, and only that an elected official, Attorney General Roy Cooper, finally put a stop to the charade, and he did so in a very unexpected and pleasing way that may not have helped his political career.

Actually, come to think of it, politics turned out to be crucial to the birth, life and death of the Hoax. (And that's without mentioning the capital "P" Politics and lower case "p" politics at Duke University).

There were a ton of Democrats in Durham who acted dasterdly and despicably. Cooper did not, and your request that everyone ignore his contributions or his future endeavors because he happens to be a Democrat smacks of politics, greed and a double standard to me. This blog has followed all of the major players since the Hoax ended.


If "Mugged by a Metaphor" happens to have any kind of success in the decade that it is eventually released, you can bet that Tim Tyson will come out with a volume entitled "Stomped by Simile" about 20 years later, and it will, of course, be based on his youth.

Apocalypse When? Very funny, Professor Anderson! That much golden humor coming from an Economics professor is suspicious!


I fact-checked K.C. Johnson regarding the Lying Hooker Hoax mention on page 43 of the John Grisham novel. It's there! Now we just need to keep "Nifonged" active in the lexicon.


The next book about the Lying Hooker Hoax needs to be a comparison between the Burch and Mangum cases.


I would add that the Diva made an invaluable contribution to Hoax lore with her attendance at, and reporting about, the 88 Race in America conference described by K.C. Johnson.

Congratulations on the book, Professor Johnson! MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

To 1:38

You reveal the relativism that is an earmark of the G88.

Supporters of the G88 seem to think "the right thing" is whatever advances their particular world view or metanarrative. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they are not able to admit any error.

The "right thing" that Cooper did was to conduct a thorough investigation, and to honestly report the results. With the lives and reputations of three young men on the line, he didn't play games with the facts.

That is "the right thing" independent of whether one is or is not a supporter of the accused.


One Spook said...

To Gregory @ 3:33 PM

I would second your astute observations on the politics (big "P" and small "p") in the Duke lacrosse hoax with this one exception.

You suggest that Cooper's actions "may not have helped his political career." I would submit that his very heroic actions clearly helped his political career, and that he used his famous ”Duke Dismissal Ad” as the cornerstone message of his campaign, I believe proves that.

Cooper not only did what was right; by taking the unprecedented step of declaring the players innocent, he did it in a manner that far surpassed "political expediency," and for that he gained a good deal of respect from North Carolina voters who, as the record shows, have elected Republicans for national office frequently in recent years.

As a result, Cooper garnered more votes in the 2008 election than any candidate running for office in North Carolina.

Now, if we could only have others like Cooper to assertively expose the criminal and ethical misdeeds of Nifong-like politicians such as Charlie Rangel and Christopher Dodd, et al, we'd be better off for it.

One Spook

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Is Deutsch a Communist?"

At a minimum she is leading the rush to Lower Education. If she and others at Duke are Communists, it is increasing clear they aren't members of any vanguard elite. Roger Kimball has them pegged...

" is no different from many other developments in the academy today. One thinks especially of the rapid growth of academic programs devoted to the study of popular culture. It must be understood that, whatever legitimate interest the academic study of popular culture may hold, the study of pop culture has been pursued primarily as a means of attacking the traditional academic concentration on objects of high culture. This can be seen in any number of modish academic movements, but is perhaps most completely exemplified by the movement called Cultural Studies. The latest and most important academic effort to resuscitate Marxist analysis and liberate the humanities from an "elitist" concern with high culture...Its adherents are especially numerous at colleges and universities with interdisciplinary humanities centers which provide a natural roost for Cultural Studies." - Roger Kimball, "Tenured Radicals, How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education"

Anonymous said...

I am not sure why you keep saying the conference put on by the G88 was not taped? I guess it is because Debrah said so. Well, anyway, in case you are interested, here is the link to the tapes of all the sessions.

So much for their not wanting anyone to hear--"lest an audience outside Duke’s campus walls be exposed to the Group’s extremist ideas." (Quotation is from your words.)

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 5.55:

I am delighted to hear that the Group relented on this point.

To answer your question, "I am not sure why you keep saying the conference put on by the G88 was not taped?" I was relying on emails penned by Kerry Haynie and a Duke staff member, stating that taping would not be allowed.

You are correct, I suppose, in chastising me for accepting anything that Haynie writes at face value.

That said, I just went to the link supplied, and could not find a "link to the tapes of all the sessions." Instead, I found a link to an NPR report, which contained brief excerpts from the sessions.

This raises serious questions: it appears, then, as if Group members allowed taping from a local media source (NPR) they considered ideologically in sync with their agenda, but did not allow taping otherwise. Ideological screening of taping an academic session raises profound questions of academic integrity.

Anonymous said...

It was my understanding that no unauthorized taping would be allowed, but that the University was taping the conference, had received permission from the panel participants, and would release it, which they have. Thus, there was no "relenting" that had to occur. That was your spin. Moreover, the sophisticated taping that is done at these events is expensive and cannot be set up on a moments notice. So, my assumption is that this was in the works all the time. You and Debrah had nothing to do with it.

A better way to get to the seven conference sessions is to go to:

Click on Lecture Series. You will see lots of lectures, conferences and the like.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 6.18:

Many thanks for the link--and, as I said, I am delighted to see the Group relenting on this issue.

It's disappointing--but perhaps unsurprising--that the Group appeared to allow NPR to tape but not those whose views Group members found unsympathetic.

As I went through the Duke itunes site, I couldn't seem to find a link to the "Shut Up and Teach" forum. Since you obviously have access to campus information, could you please point me--and DIW readers--to that link?

Anonymous said...

Again, you appear to want to claim credit for a taping that was long planned before you even got wind of the conference. These sophisticated tapings to turn lectures into Duke iTunes posts requires lots of lead time, money and personnel. You still want to spin that the conference organizers "relented." If you need to believe that and if it makes you feel important, so be it.

Again, you are wrong about NPR. NPR did a show from the conference and taped interviews, but did not tape the conference. You really strain credulity with your "analysis" of situations.

I have no information on the session you are looking for, and not familiar with it.

Anonymous said...

I just read your "Update" and commentary on the posting of the conference sessions on Duke iTunes. You are totaly dishonest in what was written in my post, and have spun it to fit your own obsessive fixations. I know you are not going to post this message or the previous one, as they reveal you as a complete fraud and sham.

Debrah said...

TO (5:55 PM)--

Let me explain once more so that even ill-informed tendentious commenters such as yourself might understand.

The organizers of that conference were some of the most paranoid people with whom I have had contact when the subject of taping was mentioned.

I would suggest that you go back and read comments during that time on this blog. Read the emails that were sent to me when I asked if I could tape it.

Paula McClain and Bonilla-Silva gave a warning before each panel discussion that no one would be allowed to tape the conference.

This is because---and only because---they wanted to control the information that would be shared afterward.

For example, if I had made a scene and demanded to ask a pointed question---(unlike all the other questions which were always in agreement with what was presented)---they would have been able to erase that portion as if no one ever disagreed vehemently.

Of course the conference was always going to be made available.

They just wanted to control "their product"......and what was made available.

Why else would Haynie have reacted so strongly against my request?

Only because he knew who I was from this blog and also from an exchange he had with me on the "reharmonized" blog.

I would advise you not to challenge me on what took place.

I sat through it for two long days.

Debrah said...

Let me make the separate point once again just to underscore what actually took place at the "Still Two Nations" sessions.

ALL of the questioners were totally in sync with everything presented.

One Duke graduate student who obviously studied under some of the panelists was given the microphone about three or four times.

The only thing this woman did was agree with their points and then ask another question to "take things to another level".....blah, blah, blah.

The only questioner given the microphone who was not carrying pompoms for the Gang of 88 was the aforementioned attendee from the Pope Center. And her question was very delicate.

Here's a column from that woman and her thoughts on the conference---Linda Shaw

Debrah said...


Her first name is Jane.


Debrah said...

I hope I will be allowed to say this.

If there had been such openness as the previous commenter would have us believe, the organizers would not have reacted so strongly when someone---OK, I won't single myself out---ANYONE! asked to tape the conference.

They wanted to control the "product".


Bill Plante, a panelist, could not understand why people attending were not allowed to tape it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Do we have to pretend that only Duke has access to the equipment needed?

Anonymous said...

At the conference, Group member Sally Deutsch maintained that the Group’s ad—for which signatures were solicited describing it as “about the lacrosse team incident”—denied that the ad referred “to the rape accusation and Buchanan Blvd.”

There are two passages in the text of the Listening Statement which make it clear that it refers to the lacrosse rape accusation.

1)" one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation..."

2) "The students know the disaster didn't begin on March 13th..."

I would like to hear Sally Deutsch's explanation of these words if the statement was not about the lacrosse accusation.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 6.38/6.45:

You are sounding rather angry; I apologize if I or any readers of the blog have distressed you.

Since you have knowledge of when the decision to tape the conference was made, I can only assume you are or have been in contact with the Group organizers.

I do hope you'll use your influence with them to encourage them to have the Shut Up and Teach forum--which, while taped by Duke, has never been released--placed on itunes.

And, again, I welcome the decision of the conference organizers to relent from the written expressions that taping wouldn't be allowed--expressions, I should note, that made no mention of an "authorized" official tape--and ensuring that the conference was taped. As I have said on numerous occasions over the course of this blog, the more exposure given to the Group's ideas, the better.

Debrah said...

Isn't it rich?

Isn't it queer?

No, no....chill. This song was written when "queer" simply meant strange or odd. Wahneema, settle down!)

Losing their timing this their careers!

Send in the clowns...........


NPR taped it?

Michel Martin works for NPR.

Michel Martin was a panelist.


Lots of objectivity there.


Thinking back on some comments made by Paula McClain when she was thanking everyone for showing up.

Verbal embroidery needles extended to full macrame mode.

Rhapsodizing how Duke paid the big bills for the conference.

By this, one can assume she was referring to the enormous tab for airfare required for various panelists who came from all over the country and one from across the pond.

The tab for lodging and meals---most likely at the Washington Duke Inn---can go into the stratosphere, as well as local transportation and concierge service for all the panelists.

All to gather for such a tedious and useless objective: Demanding more from America!

"But you can't tape us!"

"You can't tell us what to do!"

"We do what we want!"

"Going by rules is for the Vanilla Suburbs!"

"Just ask our good friend Timmy!"

Gary Packwood said...

(Professor Richard) Painter also explained his principal role simply: “Much of the work of an ethics lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, is giving a client advice that amounts to common sense.”
The Gang of 88 would read and teach that concept differently ...whereas ....In postmodernism in general, common sense is considered a fiction created by those in power to convince the oppressed that ideology is simply the way things really are.

Imagine what they do with Critical Thinking! Or the Constitution of the United States.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 6:38, unaware of the infamous "Shut Up and Teach" seminar, writes:

"I have no information on the session you are looking for, and not familiar with it."

Since you are so helpful in securing tapes of Duke events, Anon, let me help you find us the tape of this one.

The "Shut up and Teach: Faculty and Public Issues" event was held on Monday February 12, 2007 from 06:30 PM - 08:30 PM, at the Mary Lou Williams Center for Black Culture. It was hosted by ”The Institute for Critical US Studies” at Duke, according to their web site now directed by Mark Anthony Neal, the famous ”thugniggaintellectual”.

It will be easy to find this event; they haven't had many --- none in '09, one in '08; and two events, including this one, in '07. They haven't had any seminars since 2006. Apparently criticizing the US has faded in popularity since Reverend "God Damn America!" Wright has fallen from grace.

It appears that "perpetually forthcoming" scholar Lubiano tried to hijack the event by calling her outline for the event, "FRAMING THE AAAS TOWN HALL MEETING" [my emphasis], which in Lubiano's tortured, excruciating prose is here.

Frequent and excellent commentator at this Blog, Locomotive Breath, attended the event and made this comment on February 16, 2007 on this Blog: "Duke Technical Services made a professional video. Each panelist had a microphone wired directly into the sound system and there was a roving wireless microphone for questions so the sound should be quite good.

In addition there was a AAAS student making a recording with a simple video recorder.

In addition, the Chronicle reporter had a handheld audio cassette recorder and there was a still photographer from the Chronicle. This was in contradiction to the stated requirement that the media would not be allowed to take photos or make recordings."

Curiously, no tape of the event has ever been made public; no transcript has ever been released; and no posting of this even has ever appeared on Duke iTunes.

So much for "Faculty and Public Issues." [my emphasis]

Anon ... would you be a dear and get in touch with your buddies at Duke and help us find a tape, transcript, or a Duke iTune posting of this event?

Thank you.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Everyone claimed that taping of the Race in America conference was not allowed. Subsequently, when Duke allows NPR to do it (apparently without notifying others who want to tape it) and then with no fanfare provide it in bite-size chunks to be eaten by their peer group, some race clown jumps from behind a bush and screams, "Gotcha!" That's the type of mind that would demand indictments of obviously innocent boys to push their gender, class and race-centric agenda.


P.S. Trained media folk can set up for a news conference in minutes, and that includes video from multiple angles. Heck, even Bon Jovi roadies can do it in an hour. Does our angry anonymous 88er expect us to believe such toromierdas?


To One Spook:

If your point is that many Democrats are stinky, then yes, I agree. I just wanted to point out that Cooper did a good job DESPITE being a Democrat! As for him getting a boost from his Duke-related actions, you appear to know much more about that than I, so I bow to your knowledge. I do find it unlikely that he counted on such a "bump" at the time he made his declaration of innocence. (Especially given the implicit and explicit threats from the NCNAACP and the Wilmington Journal, respectively).


I made a bootleg copy of the Race in America conference and have tried to sell it on the streets of New York City. So far, I'm out $2,000.00 even after I gave it a new subtitle: "Race in America: The Obama Story, New Director's Uncensored Cut." MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Somewhat off topic but someplace recently in the comments (possibly on Liestoppers) I read that Duke has not yet paid the three lacrosse players that they settled with in what seems the distant past.

Could some legal wonk weigh in with some background on this? If they settled "out of court" wouldn't the timing of the payments have to stipulated in the settlement agreement. If not, at what point would Duke be out of compliance with the terms of the settlement and allow the suit to be reopened (and for those of us bloodlusters allow discovery to resume)?

RL alum 75

Anonymous said...

Let me clarify my earlier comment from 8:29.. I agree that KC does a remarkable job covering the Duke LaX frame hoax. I agree that Cooper is a hero in this case. He did do the right thing in proclaiming "innocent" in his statement. But again I do not see any reason, except for some political reason, why KC would add that Cooper is leading slightly in a poll against Burr, a republican, 1.5 years out from an election, as a March update of the Duke lacrosse case. If it is because Burr showed no outward support for the case then that is fairly shortsighted because there were many politicians who did not speak on the issue. even our local democrat Rep. David Price. And I am sure KC would not comment on his silence. I realize that politics were an integral part of nifong's response. As a point of interest, Cooper has not registered a formal interest that he will be a candidate yet, but yet KC is acting as if the race is on. It is not.

Anonymous said...

The taping prohibition rules promulgated by the Group of 88 organizers speak to their lack of respect for open discussion, transparency and freedom of thought. Freedom , whether it is academic or not, has no qualifiers. Does NPR have a better quality tape than any other attendee? Are of words spoken in a room at Duke restrickted to a singular editing or interpretation?

That doesn't sound like "freedom" of thought or exporession to me.

I see no difference in tape reproduction of academic seminar presentations and printed versions , so it is difficult to understand why the 88's and their supporting cast of loyal students and other apologists seem to be afraid of having their utterances reproduced and heard by those in the world who could not attend the seminar unless , of course, one listens to NPR?

It is quite interesting to me how angry the defenders of the 88's can get. At times they seem so arrogant in the righteousness of their position, and, then, there atre times where they seem to boil over if anyone dares to critique or disagree.

Freedom of thought? Freedom of speech? It seems that Freedom at Duke has some interesting definitions depending on one's politics.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.38:

Given Cooper's position as a Democrat in NC--a state in which any Dem needs strong support from black voters--the easiest thing for him to have done would have been to have dismissed the case because of Nifong's misconduct, or to have simply said that evidence didn't exist to sustain the charges.

To, instead, have authorized a full investigation--and then to have made a public declaration of innocence, revealing the truth that the investigation established--took considerable courage.

4/6/09 1:56 PM

So, what are you saying about black voters -- other than it requires courage to tell them the truth?


bill anderson said...

I do find it interesting that the dissenter chooses to post anonymously, just as Orin Starn did (until K.C. "outed" him because K.C. recognized Starn's IPs). These are people who basically operate by intimidation and bullying, and I will say that their "scholarship" is rather thin, to put it mildly. As I have said before, as one who co-chairs our university's promotions and tenure subcommittee, Wahneema Lubiano would have a difficult time earning promotion with her cv. (Apparently, Duke uses different standards, so maybe the Lani Guinier message has gotten through to the university's hierarchy.)

As for Jane Shaw, she has been a friend of mine for many years and she just is not a confrontational person. My sense is that she asked a serious question and was polite in doing so because she respects the process.

For many years, Jane directed the Political Economy Resource Center in Bozeman, Montana, and she was able to establish a dialog with people who bitterly disagreed with her, and had no qualms about resorting to personal and political attacks. For that -- and for many more reasons -- I respect her greatly.

On the other hand, we have seen the Duke "identity studies" people and their allies abuse the academic process, and abuse other people while so doing. Many of them are thugs with doctorates and nothing else. To them, the academic process (like due process of law) is something that is useful only in that they can manipulate it for their own purposes.

It is ironic to see Guinier speak about how the "ruling class" creates and then dominates a process when she wants to replace a process based on merit with one based on brute force and intimidation. In the end, that is what these "scholars" are about. Their only regret is that they cannot recreate the science and economics departments in their own image, although they will not give up trying until they succeed.

I will give these people credit for one thing: they persevere. They whine, threaten, and bully -- all the while proclaiming themselves to be "victims" -- until the people who have some integrity capitulate out of sheer exhaustion or are forced to do so by others.

One of the reasons that they hate K.C. Johnson so much -- and they do hate him -- is because he is able to beat them without having to resort to their tactics. What they hate more than anything else is someone with honesty and integrity -- and talent.

Anonymous said...

The G88 were really trying to hide this conference, right? The conference is being featured on Apple's main iTunes U site. See:

Clearly, KC and Deborah's attempt to claim responsibility for getting the conference organizers to tape the conference is nonsense and unwarranted hubris. The organizers and the university had a very sophisticated plan for disseminating the recordings of the panel sessions of the conference. This was intended to be a high profile conference and it appears to be gaining even more attention--Apple iTunes store!

Anonymous said...

The anti-foundationalist, Stanley Eugene Fish, is in the New York Times

and do you know what this Totalitarian Tinkerbell is doing over at the New York Times? He's nuancin' about Ward Churchill!

That's right, nuancin'. About WARD CHURCHILL!

What's Stan the Man going to do next, say that Finklestein is a good teacher.

Gary Packwood said...


I think it is helpful to remember that Duke is not the only school with a G88 and an Office of Student Affairs with all sorts of 'diversity' programming.

The University of Houston has the same group and the same programming

Only now we have a test that students can take which results in them learning their Oppression IQ!

You just can't make this stuff up.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 8.28:

I was strongly critical of Price's conduct in the case, as in this post.

I consider Price to be a profile in cowardice with his positions on the case.

jamil hussein said...

It's been interesting to follow the Stevens case. Now the judge (who did his job, just like Cooper, not sure if hero is the right word) has ordered criminal investigation on the DOJ attorneys (who withheld evidence for political gain)

Can anybody remind me why the Judge or Cooper did not order criminal investigation on Nifong? I know the heavily politicized DOJ refused to do it, but why Cooper or the judge did not order it?

The stakes in Stevens case are of course higher: Political activists at DOJ wanted to win Senate seat, but Nifong case was win-election-at-any-cost case, too.

bill anderson said...

One thing that K.C. has not been in this whole affair is politically partisan. He has not tried to cover up for any politician, and when David Price engaged in outright moral cowardice, K.C. was there to call him out.

I do not forget that throughout this whole sorry affair, we have had one of the best history scholars in the country putting together this blog. Furthermore (unlike me), K.C. pretty much takes the high road, and when he skewers someone, it is done with the rapier, not the blunderbuss.

(Yes, yes, I tend to mix it up with people a bit more, but K.C. has been pretty darned effective, IMO, and I cannot make a claim to being as good a scholar as he.)

And, yes, K.C. has made no bones about being an Obama supporter, but I also imagine that he believes Obama is in error on something, he will not hold back on the criticism. It is one thing to hold to a position on principle; it is quite another to be partisan, and K.C. Johnson has been the former, not the latter.

So, if you are going to criticize K.C., make sure you have your facts straight. After all, it was Democrat K.C. Johnson calling out Democrats David Price, Michael Nifong, Harris Johnson, Diane Catotti, and others. Had Cooper taken the coward's way out, I am sure that K.C. would have skewered him, too.

Moreover, he was the first person to praise Walter Jones, who at last report, still was a Republican. This blog has been anything but a profile of partisanship, and I for one will not be silent when people mischaracterize it.

You have to remember that when K.C. joined the fray, Nifong still was holding the cards, and there was no doubt he was going to be able to push this fraud to trial, most likely in Durham. And I have no doubt at all that a Durham jury would have deliberated all of a few minutes, and then pronounced these young men guilty. (They would have ignored all of the mountain of evidence against Nifong's case, of that I am sure.)

This blog was not the only thing that stood in the way of the Nifong steamroller, but it played a major role. In the process, K.C. took on a large portion of the Duke faculty -- none of the registered Republicans, I am sure -- and beat them.

In fact, he beat them so badly that when they posted here, they did so anonymously. He did not worry about their politics; he was concerned about their lack of integrity, and he was right.

So, if one wishes to criticize K.C., do it for something that might make sense, and not for his non-existent political partisanship.

Anonymous said...

In light of today's dismissal of Sen. Ted Stevens' charges, we soon may discover that the "public integrity" division of the USDOJ was trying to out-do even the improprieties of the lacrosse prosecution. And these were the folks that everyone (including me)was wanting to investigate the lacrosse case! Thank goodness they left Roy Cooper alone.

I'd also like to make a comment about the failure of so many Congresspeople to demand federal intervention in the lacrosse case. Recent history indicates that political interference in a criminal prosecution is tantamount to touching the third rail. For example, we still may see some(this time)Republicans face the music for getting U.S. attorneys fired for not prosecuting enough (this time) Democrats. I'm sure someown will come up with examples of Democrats trying to get Republicans railroaded, which will only prove my point further. Perhaps the problems that arise when politicians interfere in a criminal case demonstrates why the bar disciplinary system was a good way to handle the lacrosse matter: it was a pre-established process that could be invoked without it looking like someone was trying to put their thumb on the scales.

Ken Duke

Debrah said...

Some might want to revisit this charming episode for a reminder of the scurrilous behavior and the childish demands of Duke's Gang of 88 and lead screamer Holloway.

And they allow her inside the law school?

Debrah said...

The ever-vigilant "Stu Daddy" has just made me aware of the latest from Mary DBT Semans in The Chronicle.

My, how she adores her Dickie. He brings everything to life!

As "Stu Daddy" suggested, perhaps we should invite them inside The Diva World for tea.

Pegram said...

Anon @ 1:46 said:

Clearly, KC and Deborah's attempt to claim responsibility for getting the conference organizers to tape the conference is nonsense and unwarranted hubris.

Neither KC nor Debrah "attempt[ed] to claim responsibility for getting the conference organizers to tape the conference".

You made that up.

Debrah said...

Clearly, the H-S's Bob Ashley has become much more open-minded on town-gown issues than he was back in 2006-7-8.

Town, gown ties complex

Apr 5, 2009

For as long as their have been universities, and as long as there have been communities surrounding them, there has been tension.

I recall reading accounts of medieval writers decrying the dissolution and unruliness of young university scholars. As fraternities blossomed in the 19th century, their hijinks dismayed neighbors.

And the unease wasn't always one-way. Many early universities in this country owe their still-isolated locations to the desires of founders to buffer the students from the corrupting influence of surrounding society.

Penn State University sits in the middle of the state, in a county named, appropriately, "Centre" ("Dead Centre," to many Nittany Lions). It's almost equidistant from the urban sinkholes, in the minds of a rural-dominated legislature that established the school, of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

An early president declared the location "equally inaccessible from all directions," a status that was no accident.

Given that history, it is no surprise that the interface between Duke University and the surrounding Durham community is at times troubled. This year has seen a spike in neighborhood concerns, especially in the Trinity Park neighborhood near Duke's East Campus.

Residents there are weary of what they see as excessive late-night, inebriated partying by their student neighbors. Ironically, and perhaps predictably, the situation there seems to have deteriorated for the residents since Duke bought several "party houses" closer to East Campus to break up the concentration of revelry there.

Duke's response has not met with great favor in those neighborhoods. Residents feel Duke is too hands-off, too eager to have nothing to do with the antics of it students in those neighborhoods.

Duke seeks the subject as a complex one, with underlying issues of to what extent the university should act, in the phrase common in my student days, "in loco parentis," or as surrogates for parents.

I am not without sympathy for the Trinity Park folks who are upset.

On the other hand, as I've noted before, as someone who chose to live six blocks from the Penn State campus when I was an editor in State College, I know that choice comes with a tradeoff.

We loved the proximity to campus and the vibrant downtown that flourished across the main drag dividing town and gown. We also knew there would be Saturday morning, 3 a.m.'s, when the revelry outside would interrupt our sleep.

The trade-off was worth it. Otherwise, we would have chosen another neighborhood.

Some of Duke's neighbors would have the university build more dorms, force more students to live on campus and keep the youthful exuberance confined inside the Gothic Wonderland.

I think that overlooks the point that 20-something students a few months from discharge into full-fledged adult life want an environment more like the real world than a dormitory. Duke should, as it apparently does, feel it is important to honor that choice. Unfortunately, economic realities have put on hold a potential bridge in the planned New West (once called Central) campus.

On the other hand, living outside the campus confines should expose students to the reality of local laws. If students are breaking the law, the police have an obligation to enforce it.

Yes, perhaps Duke has an added responsibility, since these are students, but if they were 22-year-olds who were not students, the young men and women would have the same obligations - and risk.

Duke's footprint in Durham is overwhelmingly positive. It pumps substantial sums into the local economy. Its role as one of three points of the Research Triangle and its world-class research and scholarship have helped forge Durham's post-industrial success. The community is enriched by its support of the arts and civic endeavors.

Its commitment to socioeconomically challenged neighborhoods and to downtown revitalization has been profound. It has played a catalytic role in the resurgence of American Tobacco, West Village and other downtown projects.

It would be tempting to argue its overall impact on the community minimizes the friction felt with nearby neighborhoods.

Those concerns need to be taken seriously, however, and Duke appears to be trying to.

But some sense of proportion is important, and we should never lose sight of the overall community's stake in the university's presence.

Bob Ashley is editor of The Herald-Sun.

Anonymous said...

I would strongly second the comments expressed by Bill Anderson. I have not found DIW to be politically partisan. Yes, KC is an Obama supporter and there are otehrs who regularly contribute to this blog who are also. There are also those, myslef included, who saw fit to support McCain. However, what unites us all is the deisre to see that injustice not go unpunished. If anything, I think that this site has demonstrated that those with differing political views can engage in meaningful conversation and agree that there is much that unites us - political preferences aside.

Debrah said...

"The organizers and the university had a very sophisticated plan for disseminating the recordings of the panel sessions of the conference."

Too much!

Sophisticated plan?

Like getting some little audio engineer---with whom I spoke, by the way---to stand around and push a few buttons?

Then the organizers are able to edit and snip it any way they wish.

Why does an academic event require such audio handling?

I haven't seen anything like this since Milli Vanilli was outed.

"This was intended to be a high profile conference and it appears to be gaining even more attention--Apple iTunes store!"

Please give a direct link to where there is evidence of life regarding the Duke conference at iTunes.

I just do not find such a recording.

Anonymous said...

Still Two Nations -
iTunes Link
et al. Search for Still Two Nations REGSS in iTunes U. Hope that helps!

One Spook said...

cks writes @ 11:15AM:

"However, what unites us all is the deisre to see that injustice not go unpunished."


At times here, too much is made of "partisan" issues.

To Gregory: I could not agree more with your 1:48AM comment. If I resided in NC, I would have voted for Cooper if he was a Democrat, Republican, Whig, Tory, Anti-Baptist, Freemason, or a Visigoth.

What the examination of the lacrosse hoax has revealed is that there exist "American Values," if you would, that unite us all and are not the private domain of either major (or any) political party in the US.

Some of those values include citizens' fundamental rights of due process, to include the presumption of innocence; an expectation that those we elect will govern ethically, fairly, and in accordance with established procedure; an expectation that those in the academy to whom much power, privilege, and responsibility is granted will conduct scholarship and administration in our institutions that is based upon "a dispassionate, impartial examination of the facts" of any issue; and that our academic institutions will select and promote scholars based upon merit, achievement, and the proven ability to add value to the body of scholarship in their field in order to educate (not inculcate) our citizenry.

What we have observed in the Duke lacrosse hoax is a dramatic departure, and in some areas, a direct rejection of those American values.

And, that should be a matter of great concern for anyone, regardless of their political affiliation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."

One Spook

Debrah said...

Realizing that many might have missed the panel discussions which took place at Duke on September 28, 2007, this is the page where you can find the video of KC's panel.

I keep this one among others on my Diva desktop because it is purely and wholly excellent.

Scroll down to the date of the panel and you will easily find it.

It can viewed on RealPlayer.

KC is about midway through that particular discussion.

It's really excellent.

This also illustrates how easily an open and informative and educational event can be presented to the public.

No one had to search for it.

Anonymous said...

I have not found DIW to be politically partisan. Yes, KC is an Obama supporter and there are otehrs who regularly contribute to this blog who are also

KC, you know that is not true. But yet I hear no objection from you. This blog is overwhemingly partisan and bias. Anyone not agreeing with your ideas or agenda is either shouted down or you refuse to post their comments. You are dishonest. You want the public to only hear your bias ideas. How can you live with yourself? But I'm guessing just fine as long as your little side-kick Debra is holding your hand.

You don't get a pass because you support President Obama. President Obama most likely wouldn't have anything to do with you if he knew how you operate. The President does not shut people out. This is what makes him a great President because he listens to all. Even the ones who doesn't support him or his agenda in moving the country forward. You KC Johnson are an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:15
If, as you say, that K does not post the comments of those who diagree with him - why is it that your post appeared for all to read?

On a different note - Holder just announced the appointment of Mary Patrice Brown to head the Ethics unit of the DOJ. Perhaps a letter writing campaign is in order to MS. Brown to get her to open an ethics investigation of Mike Nifong and The Durham Police Department?

A Duke Dad said...

to Anonymous 2:15 PM :

Ad hominem attacks are indeed another refuge of scoundrels. Your screed contains no point at all, other than you advocate an opposing view, for which you present no rational support.

No facts, no logic, no connection with the real world.

Macbeth really nailed it:

. It is a Tale told by an Idiot.
. Full of Sound and Fury,
. Signifying Nothing

Debrah said...

TO (2:15 PM)--

This blog is full of people of every political stripe.

KC has taken lots of hits for supporting Obama from some who comment here.

If you call not wanting three innocent people to be railroaded into prison for about 30 years, "politically partisan", then you live in a very different world than most.

Would KC and the commenters on this blog be considered "good people" if we had sat back so the black community "activists" could have enjoyed a pound of flesh and a big party on the backs of innocent young men?

KC Johnson doesn't need anyone to hold his hand.

But you guys already know that all too well.

Anonymous said...

2:15 PM said...

KC, you know that is not true. But yet I hear no objection from you. This blog is overwhemingly partisan and bias. Anyone not agreeing with your ideas or agenda is either shouted down or you refuse to post their comments.

The fact that we have to keep reading your dissenting views obviously means your statement is false.

Debrah said...

OK, I am happy to say that the recordings on iTunes are quite good.

Initially, I thought there might have been a volume problem; however, after checking them out, I am happy to say that readers will have a clear recording of events...... all their closely orchestrated glory.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 4/8/09 :: 2:15 PM said...

...This blog is overwhemingly partisan and bias. Anyone not agreeing with your ideas or agenda is either shouted down or you refuse to post their comments. You are dishonest. You want the public to only hear your bias ideas. How can you live with yourself?
Your use of the word 'partisan' is a weak political presupposition that didn't work with me but sadly must work with others you try and influence.

I see KC and his work as offering enthusiastic support for factual information and the truth to offset the 'fantastic lies' told to purposely harm members of the Duke men's lacrosse team.

Presuppositions like many anonymous screeds are by definition... dishonest.

Anonymous said...

To the coward at 2:15 PM

Since this awful mess began, Professor K.C.Johnson has been the singular individual who has attempted to examine, openly,each and every allegation, regardless of the political persuasion of theperson making the allegation.It galls me that you attack such a scholar simply because of his consistency and his support of innocent people.

Dr. Johnson has , also, beem honest enough to expect that any "poster" to his blog would or could be honest enough to support his or her allegations with verifiable, irrifutable facts. Isn't that sort of a basic premise in academia, especially for those who claim to teach the truth and/or do research?

You are unable to support your "allegation of "dishonest". The ONLY basis for your argument appeares to be that he, and others who post at DIW, disagrees with you and your band of inept whiners who continue to claim "something happened".

Your "drama" is basless and boring.

Get a life.

Anonymous said...

You are unable to support your "allegation of "dishonest". The ONLY basis for your argument appeares to be that he, and others who post at DIW, disagrees with you and your band of inept whiners who continue to claim "something happened".

How do you know if anyone would agree or disagee and you haven't seen the comment posted? That's prejuding. Your darling dishonest Professor won't clear the comment. Dishonesty is pure evil. It can never lead to anything good. And that is what he continually perpetuates by blocking out opposing views or important questions.

I see KC Johnson no more than a slave-master forbidding the slave from coming into knowledge when he blocks comments. Way to go KC Johnson, keep them blind and ignorant. Suit yourself KC, You are the one having your conscience withered & dried up. Be sure your sin will find you out.

Panacea said...

Maybe this should be added to the show presented for the conference on iTunes.
We can't leave out the 88 mascot. I love those Tyson videos!

Debrah said...

TO (2:19 PM)--

I am hoping---honestly and sincerely hoping---that you are not one of the Gang of 88 at Duke.

For the last two days your comments have been filled with misspellings and misuse of words.

If there is anything holding you back in life it is not someone on an internet blog.

And all the "conferences" demanding more......and all the hyped-up charges against innocent lacrosse players that would have provided a nice warm feeling for those of your ilk......

......cannot make up for the fact that your problems and those of your friends begin and end at your own doors.

KC isn't a partisan. I know that very well after having participated here for almost three years.

He doesn't post everything that any of us submit.

Usually because they are off-topic or are inaccurate.

He's a stickler for process and facts. So much so that he irritates the hell out of me.

He's so no-nonsense that I can't even leave a complimentary entry on his Wiki page because he doesn't want the hype.

I agree. KC can be as infuriating as hell and it makes me want to go crazy!

But he does not run a partisan ship.

Your silly contentions are totally without merit.

Try posting some proof and the facts.

Lastly, you really need to give the religious schtick a rest.

You're sounding like Pat Robertson.

A Duke Dad said...

Anonymous 2:19 PM said:

"Dishonesty ... is what he [KC Johnson] continually perpetuates by blocking out opposing views or important questions."

1) Yet, your above statement was cleared for publication.

2) Kindly repost your 'block[ed] out opposing views' or a URL where they may be found.

3) Do you realize that you present merely a 3rd grade level of argument: whining and name calling.

Do you have any FACTS to present?

Anonymous said...

I would say that 2:19 most likely is the "Justice58" blogger. She makes racially-charged comments on other blogs and claims to know that the Cooper investigation was a cover-up, and that they had all sorts of evidence proving Reade, Collin, and David guilty, but were hiding it.

Of course, she does not tell us what that information is, but she and her friend, Sydney Harr of "Justice 4 Nifong" fame have made a number of wild statements on the blog, but don't seem to be able to back up any of them.

The person I feel most for is Kathy Seligmann. She still reads some of the blogs and has to see these wretched and hateful comments coming from people like Harr and his friends. She had to read someone falsely accuse her son not only of raping a woman, but also Harr's accusation that her husband and son "paid off" Moez Elmostafa to lie.

Now, Kathy Seligmann has done nothing to Sydney Harr or "Justice58," yet they still are trying to harm her and harass her by their lies. This should tell you what kind of people have influence in Durham, North Carolina. K.C. is right to call this place "Wonderland."

Anonymous said...

What a pity. Rushing to judgement of the very thing you're "so called" fighting against. You have no credibility. More than once, you've accused me of being a certain Professor, Any "Gang" of 88Member, Victoria Peterson, Michael Nifong, Sydney Harr, now Justice58. How wrong to rush to judgement and accuse someone without knowing the whole truth? I am definitely not any of the people you've accused me of. If I don't speak up, I would be just like you and that's hypocrisy.

I want KC Johnson to be honest. Sometimes, when commenters are clearly wrong about an issue, you don't correct them. You give them a pass. That's dishonesty and it is wrong.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 4.27:

I note that you provided no specific examples of my "dishonesty."

In the future, I would urge you to identify yourself. Doing so is one way to avoid being stereotyped as a "troll"--a figure who makes bombastic pronouncements without any evidence in support of them.

A Duke Dad said...

Trolls with nothing to say are quickly tiresome and boring.

Wild, unsupported statements are one aspect of troll behavior.

If this were a reality show, 4:27/2:19 would have long ago been voted off the island.

As for self-identifying, perhaps the designation "Number 3".

DIW Comments Policy:

Commenters who ... engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. To date, of the more than 100,000 comments on the blog, [KC has] applied such a sanction to only two commenters.

Anonymous said...

To Duke Dad...

I think you underestimate third graders :)

KC's scholarship, honesty and integrity are what make DIW the recipient of the Best Ethics Blog award.

Our anonymous troll is what he is.


kcjohnson9 said...

I should note that I just received a comment from the anonymous 4.27 absolutely refusing to identify him/herself--with the additional implication that he/she was a principal actor in the case.

Since there was no way to verify the insinuation, and it appears more than likely the insinuation was false, I did not clear the comment.

JWM said...

I've reposted Where's Piot's "KC - Shut Up?" which provides some background to the Feb. 2006 Shut Up and Teach event, Professor Piot's ad hominem targeting KC, the airbrushed version of Piot's paper that was published, and the African and African American Studies department's refusal to make available on the Internet as promised a tape of the Feb. 12 event, including Piot's reading of his paper.

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

The anonymous contributor who keeps insisting that his (her) views are being censored by KC is nothing but tiresome. I would say to him (or her) support your beliefs with facts. I don't quite understand your desire to engage in name-calling other than it would seem that you believe, that by doing so, you make your points (whatever those are) more believable.
Not everything that I have submitted has been published - nor would I really expect it to be as sometimes,when I think about what I wrote (often in a pique) it is off point or without merit.
Perhaps if you proofread what you write, even wait awhile before publishing it, you would be better able to express the points that you are attempting to make. As it now stands, you only fling accusations like a pre schooler splatters water colors.

bill anderson said...

On the first night of this case, Crystal Mangum started the whole thing by lying. Then a nurse named Tara Levicy lied, Mark Gottlieb got involved -- lying all the way -- and then Nifong jumped into it.

I find it interesting that this troll has been accusing K.C. of lying, but does not tell us what those lies are. This is most interesting; a person claims to be in possession of a certain "truth" in this case, but does not reveal what that "truth" is. When we ask, the person declares that K.C. and the rest of us "already know" what this mystery "truth" is.

Gee, I am on pins and needles wanting to find out what it is that I already know but refuse to tell.

Anonymous said...

I bet 4:27 is Houston Baker

Richard Painter said...

My book also includes a section on the ethics of prosecutors. I emphasize the fact that politics all too easily gets in the way of objective decision making. That is clearly what happened in the Duke case. The fact that there were supposedly intelligent professors cheering on the sidelines should be an embarassment to the University.

Richard Painter