[Update II, 8.23pm: Another fine summary of the Mangum event, from Chelsea Walker. Its closing paragraph: "The event planners’ idea of trotting out victims of false accusations at the end of the presentation to juxtapose with Crystal Mangum’s bald-faced lies as examples of the “harsh reality of minority treatment” was just embarrassing because Mangum’s case is an exemplification of the harsh realities of the antithesis to the subject being discussed: false accusations and injustice against non-minorities. In fact, Mangum herself single-handedly proved that minorities are not the only victims of failings in our justice system by leveling and pursuing false accusations against the white Duke Lacrosse players. Hearing the stories of minority victims of prosecutorial misconduct only put me in the awkward position of sympathizing with the Duke Lacrosse players, who are certainly no angels, but who were also victims of overzealous prosecution at the hands of Mike Nifong and at the behest of Crystal Mangum. It is an intolerable irony that Miss Mangum is now claiming to be an expert on the “injustices” of the legal system because the fifteen minutes of fame she bought with the reputations of the Duke Lacrosse players had almost come to an end."
[Update, 12.49pm: An excellent suggestion from the comment thread: "I think that the Stone Center should be asked to sponsor a discussion about the NCNAACP and its actions in the Duke lacrosse case. One of the saddest aspects of this affair is that the NCNAACP and other leaders (such as the Wilmington Journal) might have made common cause with the lax supporters but did not (this is nicely discussed in Until Proven Innocent). I propose a debate format around the question of whether this organization helped or hurt the interest of black people by the actions it took." I'm not holding my breath that such an event will occur.]
As noted below, on Wednesday, the Sonja Haynes Stone Center hosted an address by Crystal Mangum who spoke about “the harsh realities of minority treatment both in the justice system and the media.” The event sponsors—Theta Nu Xi Inc. sorority and Alpha Phi Alpha Inc. and Lambda Upsilon Lambda Inc. fraternities—announced that, to ensure that the event would not “be a negative experience for her,” questions would be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to the Duke lacrosse team. As it turned out, Mangum didn't even answer any of the pre-submitted questions, but left early--either due to the flu or due to an unspecified "appointment" occurring after 8pm in the evening with her wearing jeans, a hoody, and a baseball cap.
In light of the unusual policy of inviting . . . controversial . . . speakers but censoring any questions on the central matter of the speaker's significance, I have some suggestions for future events at the Stone Center.
“The Stone Center is pleased to announce an address by George Tenet, who will speak on appropriate methods of gathering intelligence and the importance of accurate intelligence in going to war. To ensure that the event will not be a negative experience for Mr. Tenet, questions will be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to the run-up to the Iraq war or Tenet’s role in developing the ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques.”
“The Stone Center is thrilled to announce an address by John Edwards, who will speak on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family in a political campaign. To ensure that the event will not be a negative experience for Mr. Edwards, questions will be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to Mr. Edwards’ affair with a campaign videographer and the woman’s subsequent pregnancy.”
“The Stone Center is delighted to announce an address by Miss California USA, who will speak on same-sex marriage policy in the United States. To ensure that the event will not be a negative experience for Ms. California, questions will be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to Ms. California’s apparent belief that same-sex rights exist in all 50 states or her subsequent statement that in her ‘country’ only ‘opposite’ marriage is allowed.”
“The Stone Center is excited to announce an address by Terrell Owens, who will speak on the need for mutual respect on a football team and the importance of wide receivers trusting their quarterbacks. To ensure that the event will not be a negative experience for Mr. Owens, questions will be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to Mr. Owens’ behavior toward quarterbacks Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb, and Tony Romo.”
Of course, any announcement such as the ones above would be greeted with widespread derision on any campus. UNC should be ashamed that one of its centers allowed Ms. Mangum to speak while prohibiting the most relevant questions that could be asked of the false accuser.
64 comments:
KC: I'm surprised you used the example of Miss California USA as someone not prepared to answer questions on same-sex marriage in your hypothetical future events at the Stone Center.
The answer she gave to to that question during the pageant is exactly the same position that President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the majority of Miss California's fellow Californians hold on same-sex marriage.
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Barack Obama stated, “I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” And in an interview with MTV, Obama said he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."At the Vice Presidential debate during the '08 campaign, Joe Biden, in response to a direct question from debate moderator Gwen Ifill--“Do you support gay marriage?”-- Biden answered, “No.”
He added: “(Neither) Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that."Like Obama and Biden, Miss California does not support same-sex marriage either. But she even recognized, in her very first words in her answer, that Americans do have a choice on the matter, saying, "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other --- um, we live in a land that you can chose same sex marriage ..."
Yet openly gay Hollywood gossip columnist Perez Hilton, who just happened to be the pageant judge who asked Miss California this very unfair question, later called her a "bitch" because of her answer, then changed that and said that actually she was a "c*nt." He later admitted giving her a low score on her answer, which pundits agreed cost her the pageant crown.
Yet, during the '08 campaign, Perez Hilton publicly supported Obama for President and no doubt voted for Obama and Biden, as did a majority of Californians; many of the same majority of Californians who voted against same-sex marriage.
It is troubling enough that you continue to use partisan political issues as examples in your analyses here, but it is even more disturbing when such an example does not even support your premise.
One Spook
KC: In your final sentence in the post, you wrote:
"UNC should be ashamed that one of its centers allowed Ms. Mangum to speak while the most relevant questions that could be asked of the false accuser."
Did you mean to add the words, "were prohibited" at the end of that sentence?
If so, I would agree wholeheartedly and would offer this additional observation.
At the web page for the Stone Center that you linked, they post their Mission Statement as follows: "The Stone Center's mission is to "encourage and support the critical examination of all dimensions of African and African American diaspora cultures through sustained and open discussion, dialogue and debate..."
It would certainly seem that prohibiting certain questions to be asked of a presenter would be antithetical to their mission of "critical examination" and "open discussion, dialogue and debate..."
One Spook
The word "shame" is not contained in the holy trinity of Race/Class/Gender. How silly of you to expect anyone pushing this agenda to have a conscience, or for that matter, any common sense.
yes, we know you despise conservatives and oppose everything they stand for and what Bush did in the last 8 years..but insulting them on daily basis on this blog seems a bit petty, especially given that probably majority of readers of this blog are conservatives. Throwing in that sleazy John Edwards (who actually was a pathological liar and as a former NC senator at least slightly relevant to this blog) does not change that.
I always thought it was nice to have a common cause with liberals - something that conservatives and liberals could work together without constant insults. No hope in that area, I suppose.
Those are but a few of the topics that could be discussed at the Stone Center.
What exactly was the purpose of inviting Crystal Mangum? This is the quesion that the organizers of the said event have not really answered. Given that her "expertise" consisted of the hoax that she helped to perpetrate, in what way was she a victim in any form(that she did not get the pay off from the media or exhortion funds from the parents of the lacrosse players, or perhaps because she was not indicted by Cooper for her false charges)? Was there the hope that there would be an "incident" at the talk so as to propel Crystal Mangum back into the spotlight - or perhaps Ed Clark so as to sell some copies of her book?
I have to believe that the reason why Crystal had a a pressing engagement or "the flu" was because the turnout for her "talk" was so low that it was not worth her while to remain - either that or she could not be certain that she would not say something (hence no quesions) that could cause real legal problems for herself.
cks
By inviting Mangum, the organizations basically contradicted the so-called purpose of this event. Like so many white females who falsely accused black males of rape in the deep South, often leading to lynchings and wrongful imprisonment, Mangum was able to appeal to the lynch mob mentality.
If you doubt that statement, don't forget the infamous April 11 rally at NCCU in which the crowd demanded the immediate arrest of the entire lacrosse team, and Chan Hall called for their prosecution even if the rape had not happened, sentiments supported by the crowd. Now, that is what lynch mobs are all about, people who call for violence against others solely for racial reasons.
I would ask the organizers of both of those meetings if they really want to bring back the days of lynching, since that seems to me to be what they want. By putting Mangum in a category with Goodman, Cheney, and Schwerner, the organizers of the UNC meeting truly have engaged in an obscenity.
Mangum and her enablers were trying to do to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans what the people who killed those Civil Rights workers did to them. Don't forget that Reade had to endure an avalanche of death threats, yet received no protection from the Durham Police (which were conspiring to frame him) and Judge Ronald Stephens, who was one of Nifong's main enablers.
So, if you ask me, I think we have come full circle in this whole sorry affair. We now have the African-American establishment wanting to become what it claimed to have hated: being a lynch mob, or at least enabling lynch mobs.
Somehow, I think that the University of North Carolina did violence to the memories of Goodman, Cheney, and Schwerner, three men who truly were martyrs, and whose murderers really were not brought to justice. Indeed, UNC seems to be wanting to switch roles with Ole Miss from the early 1960s. Way to go, Tar Heels. I guess that is what you call "progress."
To the 7.36:
Tenet is a Democrat (he was appointed by Clinton and served as a Dem. counsel to the Senate Intell. Committee), and is not someone I would consider a conservative. Edwards and Owens clearly aren't conservatives. And, at least based on the clip I saw of her, Ms. California doesn't seem capable of stringing together a coherent political thought, either liberal or conservative.
I'm glad that KC followed up with an email to the organizations that sponsored Mangum.
I fully believe that they were shocked that anyone would object to the event, which leads me to further believe that most of them do not know the details---at all---of the Lacrosse Hoax.
Not that they would object if they did, but the women with whom I spoke seemed nonchalant about the event until I went into a long litany as to why they should be concerned.
It's worth noting that the women responding to me by phone were white women----(and yes, contrary to the assertions of the late Johnny Cochran when he was teasing the race issue to-the-hilt to save his client back in the 90's, if you have any experience with speech patterns on this planet, you can usually tell the difference in the way people talk. Not always, but usually. There are some speakers whose speech patterns and inflections and voice resonance are totally generic....however, in most cases, there is a distinction.) OK?
And this is to say that the women inside the administrative offices of the UNC-CH sororities and fraternities certainly would not question the methods of the "multicultural" organizations on campus.
It's a good idea to keep driving home these points about Mangum.
Lastly, I wonder if any of these women even visited Wonderland.
KC
Taking pot shots at Miss Califorina is really beneath you. Beside the fact that she was right, just not eloquent, who's view of the world do you think is closer to the main stream of America, hers or perez hilton. If I had to think what side he would have chose in March of 2006 it would be him out there with a pot.
BCLD22
KC,
For clarity's sake, I think you should specify whether you believe the announcements would be derided on campus by the administration, the faculty or the student body.
To the 9.53:
Point well taken.
I believe all four announcements would be condemned by the student body and by the campus newspaper.
I suspect, however, that only announcements (1) and (3) would be greeted with derision by the faculty and administration at most institutions.
I despise both Jeanine Garofalo and Perez Hilton.
They make me sick!
KC -
I am disappointed at your Miss California example. IMHO, the better related example would have Hilton being invited to speak on the importance of avoiding vulagar and obscene language when speaking of others, etc.
This bit of bedtime reading is my gift to all the Lacrosse Hoax enablers.
You don't have to thank me.
It's the Diva's quest to serve mankind!
KC,
I think it is a bit unfair to lump a young woman who expressed an opinion in an inarticulate manner with men whose ACTIONS were deplorable. Perhaps she has a thoughtful, well-reasoned stance on gay marriage and just froze-up in the moment. You may not agree with her opposition to gay marriage, but where is the empathy I would expect from a professor for a college-aged kid struggling to answer a difficult question under considerable pressure in front of a large audience?
It will be interesting to see how this case is handled by the UNC-CH administration.
If Thorp's last comment in this report were correct, then questions to Mangum and Clark would not have been censored.
********************************
Group demands UNC drop charges, investigate police actions
BY DANIEL GOLDBERG : The Herald-Sun
Apr 25, 2009
CHAPEL HILL -- Approximately 20 people gathered on the steps of South Building Friday afternoon to demand that UNC drop charges against seven protesters and investigate the actions of Department of Public Safety officers during two recent campus demonstrations.
Introducing themselves as members of the newly formed UNC Protestors' Defense Committee, participants in the press conference -- most of them appeared to be students -- took turns disputing official accounts of what happened during separate appearances by former Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode. They also charged UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp with defending the free speech rights of "right wing bigots" rather than the safety and expression of students.
"We will not stand for a culture of fear," said Larissa Kaul, a UNC sophomore. "We will not be scared into silence."
Six people between the ages of 18 and 30 were charged with disorderly conduct for repeatedly disrupting Goode's speech at Frank Porter Graham Student Union on Wednesday. No arrests were made on April 14, the night protesters interrupted an appearance by Tancredo at Bingham Hall, but on Thursday DPS arrested UNC senior Haley Koch on disorderly conduct charges related to that demonstration.
According to police and media accounts, DPS officers cleared the building after the protest escalated and a window was broken. Officers "broadcast" pepper spray into the air as a warning but did not target any protesters directly and at least one officer displayed a Taser.
UNC Protestors' Defense Committee members say that description of the scene is false, citing incidences of "police brutality" in which at least one protester was thrown to the ground and students were trapped in the building by officers with pepper spray. Student Ben Carroll said he saw "eight to 10" protestors sprayed directly in the eyes by police.
In addition to their differing version of the events surrounding the Tancredo protest, claims that police punished only specific protesters during the Goode speech and questions about why Koch was marched across campus after her arrest, another campus activist said she was harassed outside a classroom.
Hannah Simmons, president of the UNC chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, said DPS officers attempted to "interrogate" her in a campus building and accused her of lying about details of her participation in the Tancredo protest. She denies participating in the protest in any way, a claim that she says police refused to believe.
"It was very shocking to me that they would come to my class as I was trying to finish my last week at school," Simmons said. The confrontation left her so upset that she went home for the day. Simmons called it "absurd" that students should be afraid to come to class because they are afraid of a confrontation with university police.
Randy Young, spokesman for DPS, said the department stands by previous statements regarding officers' response to protests. Chancellor Holden Thorp wasn't available for comment Friday afternoon and a spokesman pointed to multiple statements issues by the chancellor in regards to the situation.
On Wednesday, Thorp said that campus police had "no choice" but to arrest the six protesters after warnings were ignored.
"I want everyone to know that these six people do not represent what Carolina stands for when it comes to freedom of expression," Thorp said.
And on April 15, the chancellor expressed disappointment at the events surrounding Tancredo's speech and revealed that he had personally apologized to the former congressman.
"Carolina's tradition of free speech is a fundamental part of what has made this place special for more than 200 years," Thorp said. "Let's recommit ourselves to that ideal."
Each judge knew Miss California attended a Christian college...it was part of her paegant information.
Knowing that, Perez' question was nothing other than a trap...a "Gotcha" question to deny someone whose resume already made him queasy..the crown.
In a similar circumstance,I would find it deplorable to have a lesbien contestant who listed,... say... summer work for Gay and Lesbian causes cornered by a Christian judge.
It is Perez..and his biased stunt who really was demeaned. He did his cause about as much good as Nurse Levicy did hers.
Anon at 10:30 -
Exactly right.
After reading One Spook at 6:00, I went back and compared a couple of Youtube videos of Obama responding to questions about same-sex marriage with Miss Californai's response.
Miss California was at least as articulate as BO, who almost ties himself into a knot trying to stand on both sides of the issue. And of course, BO is a seaasoned politian who had to know the question was coming. The 21-year old student was blindsided.
That example just feels like a cheap shot at a young person.
-RD
What is up with the antagonism on this blog all of a sudden? (At least the antagonism to everything other than the Race/Class/Gender malcontents it seemed to be against before.) While I consider you an intellect I respect, admire and marvel at, I feel you have moved on to a new phase of this blog. While my intellect may not match others here, I feel I am correct in my religious, moral, and political beliefs. If I desire an under-current of animosity, a taunting of political opinion and a hint of brain washing, I can just as easily visit MoveOn.org or DailyKos. Start a blog on left leaning politics and lifestyle and I might browse it occasionally. But your recent posts indicate the shark may be behind you.
To all,
I think that the Stone Center should be asked to sponsor a discussion about the NCNAACP and its actions in the Duke lacrosse case. One of the saddest aspects of this affair is that the NCNAACP and other leaders (such as the Wilmington Journal) might have made common cause with the lax supporters but did not (this is nicely discussed in Until Proven Innocent). I propose a debate format around the question of whether this organization helped or hurt the interest of black people by the actions it took.
Chris
To the 12.22:
Perhaps so. I will take your suggestion to close the blog down under advisement.
That said, I reiterate what I said in my post: that if any university invited Ms. California USA to speak on the subject of same-sex marriage, and simultaneously censored questions to prevent her being asked about her apparent beliefs that same-sex marriage exists in all 50 states but in her "country" only "opposite" marriage is preferred, such a move would be greeted with outrage.
It would, on the other hand, be perfectly appropriate for any college or university to invite Ms. California to speak on the subject of gay marriage (given that the Alabama House just passed a resolution praising her position, she clearly has become a known figure on the question), provided that people who disagreed with her had the right to question her on the basis of her public statements.
You are absolutely right to suggest that the NCNAACP had common cause with the lacrosse team. We all do.
I don't believe Miss California ever had put herself forward as an expert on gay marriage, so why-ever would anyone ask her to speak on that subject, KC?
She's a young woman cornered and unfairly treated by someone who reserves the right to punish anyone whose views don't match his own. You know...kind of like those 88 professors at Duke that you've been skewering for years now....Your animosity toward this young woman, KC, is troubling.
Isn't this, in a real sense, grade retaliation...one of the things YOU most despise?
Maybe next year, there will be a judge from Duke's 88..and the question will be "should the Duke Three have gone to trial?" Oops,another young woman offends with the "wrong PC answer" and is torpedoed.
What would you write here?
The question was inappropriate, deliberate and frankly, Mr. Perez looks about as rabid as any of your usual targets.
Grade retaliation. Same thing.
I'm dying. Beckett is too much with this one in a reply at The Chronicle.
********************************
Beckett
posted 4/22/09 @ 2:57 PM EST
What is the size of the bathroom? Hmmm...what is the size of the bathroom? Yeah...that's indeed a puzzler. What is the size of the bathroom? Let me say it one more time: What is the size of the bathroom?
How could I have been so stupid? How could I have been so blind? The bathroom! It's size! That's the key to the whole case! Everything -- everything -- hinges on the dimensions of that room. Why didn't anyone ever bring this up before?
Thank you, my dear friend, Snake Oil Salesman. Not only did your eloquence and kind demeanor draw me to your point of view, but the very persuasiveness of your well crafted argument, the perspicacity of your observation about that horrid bathroom, has convinced me beyond all shadow of a doubt that a terrible injustice has taken place. There was plenty of space for Crystal to fly through the air in that big ol' bathroom, tossed from one burly miscreant to the other as they violated the tender flower of her womanhood.
Forget all I said about Johnson. Clearly, he's no match for you. Please post a link to your blog, so that I can read all about you, and devote myself evermore to your service.
Dr. Johnson
I've been a fan of this blog and your writings for quite a while and I have to say that the jab at Miss Ca. I believe is a bit harsh. She was asked a polarizing question by someone with a mission that had now place in a beauty pageant. I don't necessarily agree with what she said but Hilton had no business pushing his agenda at the beauty pageant
gak
KC,
Many people have already recounted their impression of Crystal's talk at the Stone Center the other night, but I recommend your readers read just one more. Chelsea Walker, as she described it, “skipped watching the SDS idiots make a mockery of our University” and watched “Crystal Mangum make a mockery of our legal system (again).”
Her “Not So Crystal Clear: Crystal Mangum’s Comments on America’s Flawed Legal System”, posted April 23 on the Carolina Review Blog, gives a UNC woman’s perspective on the event.
http://crdaily.com/2009/04/not-so-crystal-clear-crystal-mangum-comments-on-americas-flawed-legal-system/
Miss California is a pageant contestant, not a political commentator or a history professor. I feel her opinion on gay "marriage" (note the insertion of my opinion there!) is as valuable as your opinion of my surgical techniques, which isn't much either way. So why should you bring them up? Your point could have been made in a more intelligent way, as I have been amazed to read for the past 2 years. Something has changed, and I bet I'm not alone in sensing this. I even agree with nearly your entire post, but certainly not in the way it was presented. Someone must have recently really pi**ed you off??
I think Miss California is an apt example of how people would react to suppression of questions. I don't think it was a cheap shot by KC at all.
And my opinions on marriage are much closer to Ms. Cal's than those of the "lesbo in the woodpile."
You folks are reading too much into it.
Anyone read Stuart Taylor's recent piece on torture?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php
The key to the case is the lack of lacrosse DNA on Crystal or her stuff. The swabs and clothing rape kit, collected at DUMC and tested by SBI. Everything else is frosting. The DNA does not lie. KC, I too was disappointed in the cheap shot you took at Ms California and the "Everything Obama does is great" posture.
to KC Johnson:
I disagree with your assessment of Miss California and the same sex marriage question.
A rabid anti-heterosexual managed to secure a place on the judging panel. (Given it was California, this is not surprising.) The supporting arguments of the contestant were ignored, she was demeaned in vile and vulgar terms by the biased judge BECAUSE her view did not coincide with his.
The purpose of the question was NOT to elicit thoughtful commentary on social trends, but to browbeat and punish anyone who dared to disagree with this fanatic.
Sort of a common tactic in the Duke Hoax and many other current questions of social, economic and political trends: If you don't kow-tow to MY view, you are scum.
Ad Hominem attacks are another refugee of scoundrels. By securing places of trust and supposed impartiality, these scoundrels gain the power to force THEIR views on the majority.
Professor Johnson:
I agree completely with your argument at 12:36 PM, but I believe the effectiveness of your point is undermined by your assumption about what Miss California apparently believes and your condescending characterization of her syntax and vocabulary.
It is unfair to infer from from Carrie Prejean's brief and spontaneous pageant statement that she believes homosexual (her term was 'same-sex') marriage is legal in all fifty, rather than only four states.
And it's beside the point to highlight her use of the words 'in my country', when 'among my family and friends' might have been a better choice, or 'opposite marriage', when 'heterosexual' or 'traditional' marriage would have been less awkward.
You are a published, seasoned history professor and scholar. Miss Prejean is a succesful, young beauty pageant contestant. She was brave and relatively calm under pressure as she expressed her honest opinion to a so-called judge who was certain to dislike her answer.
Taking an unnecessary cheap shot hurts the otherwise sound argument put forward in your blog post above. Furthermore, needless to say it's well beneath you.
Anon: 9:36 (4/25)
I agree with your take on the "Miss California" example that was included in the seminar topics that KC posted. Like you, my opinions on marriage are much closer to Ms. California's than to Perez Hilton's.
I would also agree that Perez Hilton wanted to make a political point (since as a judge he would have been familiar with the background of all of the candidates). Thee fact that he has continued to make statements (and call the contestant all sorts of names) shows if anything the unwillingness of the many for whom freedom of speech is (or should) only be allowed for those who hold the "approved views". Ms California was asked a question - and she stated hew view (perhaps not as articulately as some would wish - I did not watch the proceedings so I have no way on knowing - but she justified her belief - and again, whether one thinks that as a valid reason, I suppose, would depend upon one's experiences.
In the case of Crystal Mangum, it is not a questions of belief (whether or not she was raped) but of fact - which she denies (as do her supporters). Thee facts are very simple, she was not. She ducked out of taking questions because she did not want to be put on the the spot of trying to defend something that is indefensible.
cks
From Ms. Walker:
".....the Duke Lacrosse players, who are certainly no angels...."***********************
I wonder how many times we need to hear or read this tired sentiment, even from a university student?
Does Ms. Walker not wish to allow a few years to pass before she enters the realm of the usual drones who just have to qualify their support for justice and the innocence of Reade, Collin, and David with this beaten-to-death phrase?
Unfortunate that her summary of the Mangum fiasco couldn't have been published in the campus newspaper.
I picked this up from the N&O blogs.
Haven't visited them in a while.
Burgetta Wheeler---the N&O's editorial page letter editor---pens an emotional goodbye to 31 of her colleagues who were let go.
If only this self-righteous Kentucky twit were among the casualties.
This woman is a vengeful and diabolical drone with a phony "Southern belle" demeanor who has inhibited free speech more times than I can remember.
As I skimmed it I saw that so many of the comments were from the people who actualy work for the N&O.
Nothing wrong with that; however, you'd think that the readership opinions would be the most relevant.
There's no pleasure at all seeing anyone lose their job, but I can't get all upset about this.
My memory of just how blatant and arrogant so many at that paper were when they were asked---and implored!---to be fair and include and allow all opinions.
I certainly feel no Schadenfreude, but I wonder if Karma does, indeed, exist.
The problem is that we now have seen a very public demonstration of religious intolerance.
In a time when we are asked to be "tolerant" and inclusive of every form of religious variation..even, to an extent, those who find in their religion a reason to exterminate us...here we see that certain Christian beliefs about traditional family are NOT be abided or tolerated as demonstrated by Perez. Indeed they must be punished. They disqualify one to be Miss USA.
So we now have PC Mind Police patrolling beauty pageants. What's next? Will one be asked how one feels about Gay marriage before the next PTA election,on the membership questionnaire for the Elks Cub,or before one can be chosen to go "Dancing With the Stars?"
How far shall we go in shaming and sequestering these traditional marriage folks?
Can one be Miss USA and not accept the concept of Global Warming? Will Al Gore get to judge and ask his special question next year?
Hey, why not?
Maybe we can utilize these beauty contests as PC Shaming Spectacles..to make clear what religious beliefs our Leftist society will no longer allow to go unpunished.
In this silly pageant, Perez pulled his very public "grade retaliation" stunt and revealed himself to be an agenda driven bully. Is he any different or more admirable, than Kim Curtis...or Lubiano...or any of the others we have spent years on DIW deriding? Do you, KC approve of "grade retaliation" if the issue is gay rights..one with which you apparently agree?
Was your complaint with the Duke 88 all these months only about their topics,KC... not their tactics?
To Anonymous @ 8:08 --
"By putting Mangum in a category with Goodman, Cheney, and Schwerner, the organizers of the UNC meeting truly have engaged in an obscenity."
Exactly.
I would offer this one caveat: Do we know who was responsible for the audio-visual materials? Was it Theta Nu Xi Inc. sorority and Alpha Phi Alpha Inc. and Lambda Upsilon Lambda Inc. fraternities or Ed Clark? Even if the sorority and fraterinities were not responsible for the A/V materials, they should have questioned their use after the presentation.
********************
To One Spook, skwilli, joan foster, jamil hussein, jim2 and the other conservative cultural warriors I may have missed --
Wow, take a chill pill. Conservatives can say silly things too, and it doesn't hurt to laugh at them. As for Miss California's proposed speaking engagement at UNC, I would suggest that to make the analogy tighter, she should speak on the topic of poise. The censored questions would be anything to suggest that poise is an appropriate judging criteria, when breast size is so much more relevant. (Like judging dogs at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show on their "fetching" ability).
I do agree with jim2 that Perez Hilton could follow her with a speech on the importance of tact.
By the way, Joan, why would you call the question a "trap" or a "gotcha" moment when Miss California has admitted on the record that she knew the subject was a possible topic for a question, and she even PREPARED for it.
Moreover, shouldn't she (or her handlers) have expected such a question from a panel that included Perez Hilton? What if Wayne LaPierre or Al Gore appeared on that panel of judges? Could you guess the topic of their questions?
********************
We should wait a sufficient length of time, say 30 to 45 minutes, and again ask Mangum why she had to leave early from her important speaking engagement. I'm sure we would get a THIRD reason.
Then, we should interrogate her drivers. That would lead, I'm willing to bet, to a FOURTH reason.
********************
Finally, there are some "interesting" articles about Brodhead and a new Trinity Heights "unruly" law over at the Duke Chronicle website. I think the commentators offer a better prediction of "Brodhead's Legacy" than that offered by the author of one of the articles, and I want to sign up for D. U. K. E. after reading the comments to another! MOO! Gregory
Joan Foster:
"I don't believe Miss California ever had put herself forward as an expert on gay marriage, so why-ever would anyone ask her to speak on that subject,..?"
Exactly right.
Ken
Dallas
To the 9.55, et al:
POLITICO reports, "Prejean has taken full advantage of her newfound stardom, becoming an almost hourly fixture on cable news," where, of course, she is being asked on same-sex marriage.
It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not.
To RD at 12:16 --
"After reading One Spook at 6:00, I went back and compared a couple of Youtube videos of Obama responding to questions about same-sex marriage with Miss California's response.
Miss California was at least as articulate as BO, who almost ties himself into a knot trying to stand on both sides of the issue. And of course, BO is a seaasoned politian who had to know the question was coming. The 21-year old student was blindsided."
If we are going to judge speakers on eccentric mannerisms and individualized tics, then William F. Buckley, Jr. sounded more than mildly "retahded." But, instead, we judge people on what they say.
For that reason, it is easy to see that President Obama belongs in the Buckley, and not the Miss California, camp of oratory.
As for being "blindsided," please see my comment above. Miss California admitted she PREPARED for the question. She is your worst witness. Moreover, she should have lost just for the phrase "I think I believe in ...."
*********************
I did a post on another blog about "Reverse PC," which is like "Reverse Racism," except that the timing is all wrong. It should more accurately be called "First PC."
Before it became taboo to report the skin color of an alleged criminal defendant in the newspaper even though it may be helpful in identifying same, and before it became de rigueur for colleges to discriminate based on skin color, there was Reverse PC or First PC (which sometimes included discrimination by colleges on the basis of skin color).
The most notorious examples, of course, included the Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy witch hunts. Many of those same "Frist PC" concerns continue today, for example:
-- It is not reverse PC to admit that you are an atheist or agnostic running for political office in America.
-- It is not reverse PC to admit to the other players on your sports team that you're a homosexual.
-- It's not reverse PC to call Colonel Oliver North anything other than "Colonel North" or "Colonel Oliver North," even though the only other non-active duty colonels who keep that title are found in books written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or the board game "Clue."
-- It's not reverse PC to question the President of the United States, the Office of the President of the United States or the Vice-President of the United States or his office.***
-- It's not reverse PC to show affection to your spouse in public, unless it is apparent that a diversity of sexual organs exists.
______________
*** This directive is hereby suspended until January 2013 or upon further notice.
*******************
To One Spook, skwilli, joan foster, jamil hussein, jim2 and now RD --
I have enjoyed almost everything ya'll have written about the Duke Lax case. MOO! Gregory
".....the Duke Lacrosse players, who are certainly no angels...."
I noticed that also and almost made a comment about it at the site, but refrained because my comment would have been too long to reasonably make my point; and it would have directed the topic of that conversation elsewhere.
But this continues to demonstrate how the reputations of the players were hurt (even after being virtually "cleared" in the Coleman report of being hooligans).
To Kc, 10:06:
I don't see anything strange that she is now on TV, after the bizarre episode with biased judge is the most talked thing in the news and blogosphere. Of course, everybody is now interested in her.
The point is that it was unfair to inject political activism into beauty contest.
I've been thinking about this blog post and I think it is even more disgraceful than I first realized.
CGM is a dishonest, pathological liar and a danger to the society (her action almost resulted in long prison sentences for innocent people). Comparing Tenet or Miss California with her is just beyond belief. Tenet, by all accounts, was honest director and made his best effort (and reached identical conclusions with anti-war Germany's and Russian's intelligence services, and Saddam's generals.). Miss California was honest too and her answer was certainly reasonable and shared by majority of the country - including the neo-liberal president.
I agree with previous poster about the grade retaliation aspect. I can imagine that Klan88 would ask students about their opinion on gay marriage, iraq war, global warming or any other hot topic and "wrong" opinion would result in failed grade. Hopefully not at Brooklyn College..
Why can't we just get along? I came to this great country 9 years ago in pursue of freedom and happiness. I found happiness, but freedom is getting cornered. Of all places, I would have assumed that this blog were to respect different political opinions and avoiding the divisive and dishonest insults.
Whether Miss California was "prepared" for that question, or knew of its possible inclusion is beside the point.
Suppose Lubiano had one of the 06 Lacrosse team in her class and... well aware of his presence... asked him to prepare for a possible final exam question on..the Duke Lacrosse case.
Facing Lubiano, grimacing and frowning throughout his reply, and KNOWING there could be only ONE CORRECT MINDSET in her view...the player is essentially required to either frame his reply to please the Professor (or Judge) and pass...or betray his teammates (or Faith) and fail.
What would you think of that?
This player has...two minutes (or whatever) to answer verbally.Not much time for elaboration or nuance. Of course, the judge is well aware of that.
Gotcha!
Miss California was asked by a Gay activist judge to publicly betray her faith as the price for achieving her goal. Whether you agree with her answer or not..Bravo! to her that she had the integrity not to capitulate!
Was any other contestant put in a similar position? If not, she deserved extra credit for poise under extreme pressure.
The fact that Miss California is being asked to comment now in the media is probably an indicator of the backlash to Perez' "trap", both the one he sprung at the pageant...and the ugly one he keeps opening to his own detriment...all over the media himself.
to 10:06AM
As best I can tell, no one is defending the hypothetical concerning free speech. More likely, the "defenders" aren't defending Ms. California as much as they are attacking what they view as a cheap shot that you took while setting up that hypothetical. 6:45PM and 8:47PM raise cogent points. Your 4/25/09 12:36PM post seems petulant.
In so far as Ms. California now being in demand, she wouldn't be if Perez Hilton hadn't been such an ass. Do you suggest that there is something wrong with Ms. Prejean's activities? Does she not have the right to express her feelings over the treatment she received during the pageant?
As usual I remain confused.
To the 4/25/09 10:30 AM and 1:59 PM,
The question posed to Miss California may or may not have been fair, and one can debate whether choosing this particular hypothetical was the best one to serve KC’s point. However, the suggestion that KC has animosity toward this woman is unfounded, at best. In the spring and summer of 2006 many people who should have known better (including myself) allowed their empathy for the three accused players to go AWOL. Instead of the abstract, almost faceless image of privileged lacrosse players, UPI gave us a genuine portrait of three young men who were scared, hurt, and confused by what was happening to them. KC has a proven track record of empathy toward students that few could match.
Now could we possibly move on? I would love to hear anyone’s take on reforming the NCNAACP.
Chris
Gregory. if as a pageant judge..Perez, Gore, or Sean Hannity is going to use his moment of power to pose questions...as a vehicle to essentially disqualify anyone who does not MOO like his particular cultural sacred cow..he should be disqualified as a judge.
You and KC cannot defend Perez unless you intend to extend that same defense to all those who rallied to deny the Lacrosse team their season,their grade point averages and even their reputations. Don't the people we have spent years excoriating here...also believe that their respective views are non-debatable... except by small-minded "haters?" Is that not how we have seen them excuse their own intolerance and inconsistency?
I'm no "cultural warrior"...just an admirer of KC's and of yours..who is disappointed to see you employ the NC-NAACP excuse."Yes, we stand firmly for all these things..unless we don't like the targeted people."
SACRED COWS and TRADITIONS
joan foster 4/26/09 :: 9:19 AM :: said...
...The problem is that we now have seen a very public demonstration of religious intolerance.
...
::
I think not as organized religions don't require their parishioners to have a marriage license.
Kim Curtis...or Lubiano or Perez or the thousands of other 'Gangs of 88 or 44 or whatever' are passing around a list of our American Sacred Cows and Traditions just to see if we are going to get our shorts in a knot when we are challenged ...to change.
Gay Marriage? Why is the government concerned with ANY marriage in the first place?
Strippers as a Right of Passage for College Students? Why?
Porch Pissing as Right of Passage? Why?
Probable Cause? Why?
Due Process? Why?
Constitutional Right To Petition For Redress Of Grievance? Why?
And we do get our collective shorts in a knot each time one of our Sacred Cows or Traditions becomes the political 'shaken baby' du jour.
Which of course ...is the plan... as we always take our eyes of the immediate harm and pretend that the situation has wider or global implications.
Sheesh!
There is nothing 'global' or 'PC' about finding the people on the campus of Duke who worked with the people in the City/County of Durham to harm those lacrosse athletes. WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE at Duke and in the City/County of Durham?
Haul their asses into a proper court of law before someone else is harmed at Duke.
And I have no problem with discussing changes in the US Constitution or the appropriateness of stripper parties and porch pissing ...after we deal with the issue of hand.
::
GP
Per Chris' suggestion:
I have written the two organizers of the Mangum event to ask if they would be willing to host an event on the NCNAACP. No response as of yet.
To Joan F.:
I am assuming that you are offering this comparison unseriously. The hypothetical behavior of Lubiano that you are describing would be a violation of the faculty handbook and the tenets of academic responsibility.
I admit: I'm not up to speed on the rules of professional conduct regarding beauty pageants (perhaps you can point me to an on-line version of these rules?). But I doubt very much there's any prohibition on asking a question about contemporary public policy (indeed, I think it happens all the time). And, for better or worse, there's an expected answer to such questions--pro-"peace," pro-"tolerance." It would be hard for me to imagine, for instance, that a pageant contestant who answered a question saying that she would use her crown to rally support for sending more troops to Iraq would have done very well, either. It's true that attitudes on gay rights have shifted a lot in the last 10 years; Ms. California's opinion on the question is now in the substantial minority among her age group--whites under 30 support gay marriage more strongly than any other demographic group. I suppose if this had been 10 years ago, Ms. California would have been fine.
It's absurd to compare professional misconduct (of the type we saw in the Duke case, if in not quite as blunt a form as your hypothetical describes) in the academy to a routine event in a pageant (a contestant being asked a question for which the answer is supposed to indicate "tolerance").
Part of the problem here is Prof. Johnson's original use of analogies in his blog post which may or may not be relevant or understandable. In addition, his excessive use of sarcasm detracts from his usually good arguments.
(a contestant being asked a question for which the answer is supposed to indicate "tolerance").
.
.
Un-believable... We now have jumped the shark in thought control. "Supposed", according to whom?
Did you co-author "The Giver"???
DM
Dr. Johnson:
1) Perez Hilton used a beauty pageant as a platform to excoriate a leading contestant whose views did not sufficiently defer to his.
2) In subsequent statements, Hilton called the contestant "Bitch", "Cunt". He subsequently apologized for "Bitch" and then later, after that, retracted the apology.
3) Hilton stated he voted against the contestant, which cost her the title, because of her answer, which he called "the worst answer in the history of the pageant" and that it was booed.
The video of the answer clearly shows only audience APPROVAL of her answer.
Video is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m35zNXq7C0s
4) Like so many things in today's society, institutions are politicized for narrow agendas. This results in people losing faith in these institutions.
5) Common to failed societies is the lack of faith in government and institutions. The same hijacking occurs in government (NC Judiciary, et al), academia, charities. The beauty pageant is a small microcosm of this.
The public trash talking of Perez was intended to publicly humiliate someone who presented an opposing view. His choice of language is deplorable.
KC - There were violations of faculty handbook policy when Peter Wood denigrated his students publicly and when professors altered grades based on the fact that students (I can't remember if it was just one or more than one) were members of the lacrosse team. I know (from my long experience in academia) that there are those teachers who use the power of the gradebook to "cow" students into submission of their particular views or who use it as a way of retaliating against students towards whom they have a certain antipathy.
While I understand the point you were making with your example, I also can see why there has been such a heated exchange over the Miss California example. Political and current event questions are always asked of "beauty queen" contestants, it has always been expected (even going back to the days of Bert Parks) that the contestants would give the pc answer of the moment. (Not all did and there chances of gaining a title suffered as a consequence). That Ms. California did not (one could argue that Perez Hilton was setting her up - perhaps there would have been a follow-up question from him if she had in fact given the pc answer in which he questioned whether or not she was going back on her religious beliefs?), I believe, says something about Ms. California - that her religious beliefs (whether one shares them or not) about homosexual marriage are deeply held. The first amendment guarantees her the right to express that view. That Perez Hilton disagrees with it is also his right. That he was and continues to be rude is either necessary nor does it reflect well upon him. One can be disagree stongly yet still be civil. I would hope that those who contribute their opinions on this blog do not adopt the example of Perez Hilton in their postings.
cks
To Joan F.:
KC says…”I am assuming that you are offering this comparison unseriously. The hypothetical behavior of Lubiano that you are describing would be a violation of the faculty handbook and the tenets of academic responsibility.”
No, I am not. I think most of us are reacting to a similar sense of bullying, of forcing the supplicant to kneel to the viewpoint of the powerful. To create a question that essentially forces this attendee of an fundamentalist Christian college to either deny her faith and advocate for gay marriage, or be eliminated from achieving her goal. It was a sorry public spectacle, and IMO ..not on her part. . “You will yield publicly or else.”
I ask again, was any other contestant posed a question like this? Would you approve of a evangelical Christian judge (if such a one would be “allowed”) to ask a question of a lesbian contestant requiring her to affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman…and then give her a low enough score to eliminate her to retaliate against her answer?
KC says…”I admit: I'm not up to speed on the rules of professional conduct regarding beauty pageants (perhaps you can point me to an on-line version of these rules?).
Hmmm…and something I’ve said has given you the impression I know where to “point you online?” Regretfully no.
KC says..” But I doubt very much there's any prohibition on asking a question about contemporary public policy (indeed, I think it happens all the time). And, for better or worse, there's an expected answer to such questions--pro-"peace," pro-"tolerance."
An "expected answer?" Who determines this years' "expected answers?" Can any of our favorite 88 professors..if asked to be pageant judges...insert THEIR "expected answers?"
"Pro-tolerance?" Does this “pro-tolerance” position extend to fundamentalist Christians? Can their beliefs be tolerated, even in beauty pageants?
KC says..”It would be hard for me to imagine, for instance, that a pageant contestant who answered a question saying that she would use her crown to rally support for sending more troops to Iraq would have done very well, either. “
Did Miss California ever express her intention to “advocate” against gay marriage? Will you link me to her expression of this intended agenda? Since you brought up the war, were the other contestants vetted on their Iraq positions? If not, can you be certain that this activist judge was not remiss in imposing only THIS grade retaliation? Perhaps there were others needing to be squashed. Any other non-allowed positions for Beauty Queens these days? Why not just articulate to the young women at the very start… that young ladies who do not hold certain “popular” views…need not apply? This will eliminate young women from spending time and money on something they cannot achieve…and the need for one activist judge to carry this burden alone.
KC says…”It's true that attitudes on gay rights have shifted a lot in the last 10 years; Ms. California's opinion on the question is now in the substantial minority among her age group--whites under 30 support gay marriage more strongly than any other demographic group. I suppose if this had been 10 years ago, Ms. California would have been fine.”
Again, pageant directors should state up front that anyone holding views that have passed out of popularity should just go home. Why play games? THEY will not be tolerated (by Perez Hilton or any other of those passionate advocates of…um-m-m-m tolerance .
KC says…”It's absurd to compare professional misconduct (of the type we saw in the Duke case, if in not quite as blunt a form as your hypothetical describes) in the academy to a routine event in a pageant (a contestant being asked a question for which the answer is supposed to indicate "tolerance").
I believe there is a bit of “intolerance” in your use of the word “absurd” to frame your response to me. Whether it is in academia or in a beauty contest, a display of only “tolerating” views that coincide with one’s own is offensive. That’s what I saw. Some people pursue their dreams in academia, some on the lacrosse field, some in pageants. This young woman’s dream was denied her because an activist judge was not going to allow a Christian woman with views other than his “popular" ones…to succeed.
I believe you , a brilliant and well published academic…were almost denied tenure for not parroting “popular” views among your peers. You, KC, in your own way, have a lot in common with Miss California
4/26/09 2:33 PM
"Now could we possibly move on? I would love to hear anyone’s take on reforming the NCNAACP."
Ask Cash Michaels about the subject.
.
"It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not."
KC. Of course not. I will not and haven't defended Miss California, as I don't care what she thinks (either way) about same-sex marriage. I care what YOU think about the Rape Hoax and the Race/Class/Gender issues! It was a poor choice of example(?) to advance your point. I'm not defending her, I'm (mildly) scolding you. I also think the shark is still way in front of you, although recent posts make me question that for the first time. Don't let your opinion on my opinions, (and other's) make you deviate from burying the Race/Class/Gender bigots and the "rape victims never lie" crowd. And (anonymous), if I "lighten-up" any more, I'll float away.
KC, every member of the 88 thinks that they were pursuing "social justice" in persecuting the Lacrosse team. They claim they were just “listening." No one articulated their hypocrisy better than you. One's opinion on gay marriage is really not the issue here, just as… compassion for one’s minority students… did not constitute the premise for outrage over The Listening Statement.
Someone more articulate than I stated the case this way…
"In contemporary society, partisans on both sides of issues such as abortion, the Middle East, affirmative action, welfare reform, prayer in public schools, and gay marriage maintain that their own position serves the cause of “social justice.” But who decides just what constitutes “social justice?”
(You now nominate…Perez Hilton at the Miss USA finals..."Out with this Christan c**t!")
And paraphrasing here…
"I fear that if the (activist judges) continue to use the sword of (THEIR perceived social justice) to thrust our (Beauty Pageants)... into fundamentally political areas, the shield of (supposed “tolerance” and “popularity”) will no longer protect us when OTHER politicians, religious leaders, or the public decide that they, too, should have the right to impose their political agendas on ( contestants.)
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6253.html
Whose definition of "tolerance" applied here and was Miss California so informed when she first began competing? Perhaps the Miss USA Pageant should provide a list of beliefs that preclude a young woman from achieving the title at the first. Why spring Perez Hilton at the finale? If one does not possess the current "popular", "tolerant" views...go home!! Evangelical Christians need not apply.
How far can we take this? Do we need to know how each respective contestant stands on “abortion, the Middle East, affirmative action, welfare reform, prayer in public schools?”
Do we need polls to see what "popular" positions should prevail in the judging?
If polls tip right,should Trump seat, say...Anita Bryant next year and let her impose her particular moral “check-list” on the future of various contestants? How about Wendy Murphy or Ann Coulter? May they also have a turn in the blackball seat?
Should I assume, KC, that it is you who are "unserious" in this new stance and just toying with your admiring posters on this Sunday
afternoon?
To the 4.13:
I should note that I have indicated my public support for gay marriage (as well as abortion rights) since the start of the blog.
To the 6.19:
Yes, Joan, you're absolutely correct. To perform my penance, I'm going to start up a blog as soon as the civil case is over exposing the pernicious efforts of beauty contests suppressing anti-gay opinions. (After all, seven times as many states ban gay marriage in their state constitutions as allow gay marriage, so we obviously live in a society where anti-gay marriage folks have no influence at all.)
And to confirm my "seriousness" to you, I now fully recognize your perceptive point that there's absolutely no difference between a professor abusing her classroom authority by exploiting false charges against her students and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for expressing her hostility to same-sex marriage. I can't imagine how I ever didn't see this connection from the start.
To the 4.13:
I should note that I have indicated my public support for gay marriage (as well as abortion rights) since the start of the blog.
To the 6.19:
Yes, Joan, you're absolutely correct. To perform my penance, I'm going to start up a blog as soon as the civil case is over exposing the pernicious efforts of beauty contests suppressing anti-gay opinions. (After all, seven times as many states ban gay marriage in their state constitutions as allow gay marriage, while the federal government refuses to recognize the same-sex marriages in the four states that allow it. So we obviously live in a society where anti-gay marriage folks have no influence at all.)
And to confirm my "seriousness" to you, I now fully recognize your perceptive point that there's absolutely no difference between a professor abusing her classroom authority by exploiting false charges against her students and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for expressing her hostility to same-sex marriage. I can't imagine how I didn't see the connection earlier.
If, on the other hand, I were a cynical person (which of course I am not) I would say that anyone who even begins to equate the sort of misconduct we have seen from the Duke faculty over the past three years with a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for expressing her hostility to anti-gay marriage trivializes to a disturbing degree the sort of misconduct we have seen from the Duke faculty in the last three years.
To KC:
(First, in reply to an earlier comment of yours: I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone here would defend the censorship of questions in any such forum, as was the point of your hypothetical.)
But, at 2:33PM, you write:
"Ms. California's opinion on the question is now in the substantial minority among her age group--whites under 30 support gay marriage more strongly than any other demographic group."
I would assume that's correct.
But, her opinion represents that of the majority of her state; the majority of the American public (where a majority also support civil unions for gays); and indeed the stated opinions of the President and Vice President of the United States.
That seems appropriate for a person who would represent the USA (as opposed to say, "Miss Under-30 America"), and yet she is vilified by many, including her manager (a former Playboy Playmate), and she lost the title because of her opinion due to an overt and unfair influence of fringe views.
Where have we heard that before?
And, unless I misread your comment, you seem to presume that because of her stated opinion, that she would "use her crown to rally support for" traditional marriage.
Somehow, I don' think that Obama and Biden, who share Miss California's opinion, are going to use their offices to rally support for traditional marriage.
I wonder why all of the "liberals" among us are comfortable with a president and vice president who hold that opinion, but yet they fear and shame a Miss America who holds the same opinion?
That doesn't strike me as very liberal.
And, I continue to believe it was a poor example. A better example would be as follows:
“The Stone Center is delighted to announce an address by Vice President Joe Biden, who will speak on ethical scholarship and public speaking in the United States. To ensure that the event will not be a negative experience for Mr. Biden, questions will be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to Joe Biden's apparent belief that plagiarizing others' works in writings and public speeches is allowed."
One Spook
To Joan:
I have not defended Perez Hilton's actions -- especially his post-beauty pageant comments -- only his right to be a judge who doesn't have his questions pre-censored by anyone.
On another note, I don't assume that Miss California lost because of her opinion. Hilton was only one of a number of judges. If I had to guess, I would say the fact that her response was the second worst beauty pageant answer of all time -- in terms of poise, syntax, logic and made-up concepts -- had more to do with her runner-up finish. But, I don't know all the facts.
Like I wrote earlier, she should have lost just for saying "I think I believe ...." On top of that there was the "opposite marriage" silliness, the "country" instead of family, the "Well ..." which started the answer, and at least one "ummmmm." Instead of admitting that the contestant mangled the English language, you think "she deserved extra credit for poise under extreme pressure."
Judging beauty pageant contestants based on their politics and not the substance of their "work product" is exactly what I don't want to see. MOO! Gregory
Gregory:
"in terms of poise, syntax, logic and made-up concepts -- had more to do with her runner-up finish. But, I don't know all the facts."
I think Joan would probably agree with you under most circumstances. However, Perez Hilton's subsequent comments made it clear it was the message, not the syntax, that cost Miss California the crown.
Ken
Dallas
Thanks Ken, I now have to send ambassadors to the Court of St KC. I have not ever been a frequent poster there but I suppose I must now remain in seclusion here on LS...denied entry to Wonderland ever again...(though Mr. Reharmonizer was sporting enough to post every one of my replies to him...and I had not preceded those posts with lavish praise about HIM all over the internet.)
So, thinking ahead... I could pop in THERE for the occasional change of scenery.
It's my own fault. Like Miss California, I just did not understand what PC non-compliance might mean to me.or my stubborn refusal to yield. I assumed that KC's posts meant that his position on politicaly correct bullying extended beyond race , gender and privilege. Were there footnotes? I should have read the footnotes!
Never to enter Wonderland again
KC has been the absolute champion at exposing the hypocrisy of the PC angle in this case. He has chided the 88 for not coming to his Blog and engaging him openly. He has railed against the closed mindset of academia, the bullying tactics of grade retaliation, the tactics of cheap shots, agenda-babble, and snide retorts replacing meaningful exchange.
Then suddenly... he's inserting an online put-down of the agenda-trapped Miss California quicker than Lubiano got out "something out on the Lacrosse case" and he starts shutting down comments like Melanie Sill on her "The Blog Has MOVED on" thread!
We all know that KC is a master at internet oppositional "engagement". My hands trembled a bit as I hit "send" on my replies last night.
I thought he might run me into the ground with a devastating rebuttal. Well, I remain open to be educated.
I thought he might stagger me with links and statistics. I was prepared to yield where necessary.
I was NOT prepared to have him call me out by name and refuse to print my meager rebuttal! Holy New York Times! No, I never imagined that.
I expected from him...what he has expected from others. Polite, reasoned open exchange of ideas. I was brought up with that old school debate tactic of actually LISTENING to well-argued opposing points. So I was interested in his point on point reply. I was listening.
KC wrote..."The academy is supposed to involve the life of the mind. Academic freedom envisions an atmosphere in which professors first express their ideas and then modify their viewpoints based on informed criticism. To James, however, it appears that professors should simply have the right to make any statement—however outrageous—and then never have to defend its content."
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/group-of-88s-three-d-response.html
Maybe my replies were not worthy enough to be "informed criticism." well, that's for others to judge. I'm not ashamed to post them here.
Always before, he has posted almost every comment, hasn't he?
I mean...it is just ME, just this one time...isn't it?
Anyway, thanks Ken in Dallas...and thanks to the mods. You posted the new smiley just in time.
:ban: :ban: :ban: :ban: :ban:
To Joan:
My best wishes to you.
I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.
Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.
Post a Comment