Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Simply Extraordinary

Three Duke University students were the victims of the highest-profile fraudulent rape claim in modern American history. That fact alone should make the University particularly sensitive to the dangers of false rape allegations, and the need for a firm commitment to due process in handling any allegation of sexual misconduct.

But Duke administrators seem to worry not about violating the due process of rights of their students but instead about running afoul of politically correct campus ideologues. So, starting this semester, the University has adopted a new “sexual misconduct” policy—a policy that even some Duke administrators fear will lead to an increase in false rape claims against Duke students.


Last Friday, the Chronicle reported the arrival of the new policy. Two factors prompted the change. The first was an increasingly common phenomenon on college and university campuses—a fear of litigation, as expressed by Duke General Counsel Pamela Bernard. Yet the policy Duke has developed seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The second factor was a development that those in the reality-based community might consider to be a good thing: over a three-year period, reported cases of sexual misconduct on college campuses as a whole and at Duke specifically (slightly) declined.

But for those convinced that the rate of sexual assault at Duke is higher than the rate of all violent crimes in Detroit, these figures must mean something else—that a plethora of rapes are going unreported. The enemy in this battle, moreover, is particularly devious. As Ada Gregory, director of the Duke Women’s Center, told the Chronicle, “The higher IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are . . . imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop.”

Of the many nutty statements generated by the lacrosse case or its aftermath at Duke, this assertion has to rank as among the nuttiest. Let’s leave aside the fact that in nearly every other context, campus “activists” blanch at suggesting a connection between IQ scores and any type of cognitive abilities. What actual evidence exists to corroborate Ms. Gregory’s extraordinary assertion?

I emailed Gregory to ask if she could cite studies showing that sex offenders at good universities are more “cunning” or “manipulative” than sex offenders without college educations or with lower IQs; or if the Duke Women’s Center had access to studies showing that elite universities needed to take special steps to deal with the presumably “cunning” and “manipulative” male student criminals in their midst.

Gregory responded by pointing me to a letter from her in yesterday’s Chronicle, in which she did some damage control. She asserted that her IQ comment was inaccurate “in the context of our conversation” and that her comments were “selectively edited and taken out of context to imply that all Duke students fit this pattern, which is emphatically not the case.”

Gregory’s letter, however, essentially repeated what she told Chronicle reporter Lindsey Rupp—albeit in far less inflammatory language: “The difficulty in detecting and investigating sexual assault cases, particularly acquaintance rapes, which are often committed by undetected rapists who use manipulation and coercion, has been shown by the research of David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts at Boston clinical psychologist, and others. The investigations of these crimes can be further complicated by offenders who may also be categorized as antisocial or sociopathic, who are of above-average intelligence and can be highly manipulative and coercive, not only with victims but in the investigation process. Universities gather a lot of people with above average intelligence, so it stands to reason that campuses might see more of these kinds of individuals than the general population.” [emphasis added]

Yet Lisak’s own research does not seem to substantiate Gregory’s point about a greater likelihood of finding undetected rapists among elite universities with intelligent students than in the general public. While Lisak does focus on the dangers of coercion or manipulation, here is the conclusion of a 2008 paper he delivered on “undetected rapists”: “The implications of the research on undetected rapists – research that has largely focused on men in college environments – point to the similarity of these offenders to incarcerated rapists. [emphasis added] They share the same motivational matrix of hostility, anger, dominance, hyper-masculinity, impulsiveness and antisocial attitudes. They have many of the same developmental antecedents. They tend to be serial offenders, and most of them commit a variety of different interpersonal offenses. They are accurately and appropriately labeled as predators.”

Sheila Broderick, a Women’s Center staffer, was even blunter on the need for a more forceful policy. (This was the same Sheila Broderick who praised the Group of 88-oriented Campus Culture Initiative report for stimulating “critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.”) Her own “thoughtful analysis”? Duke, a university with 13,457 students and five reported allegations of sexual misconduct in 2007, suffers from a “rape culture.”

Ms. Broderick’s evidence for this breathtaking claim? Assertions (which appear to be undocumented) that an unrevealed number of male Duke students had imitated a figure called “Party Boy Chad,” one of the characters in a required presentation for freshmen put together by the Women’s Center.

I twice e-mailed Broderick to ask if she had evidence for her claim that did not involve a Women’s Center fictional character; and if she could provide a precise definition of what constituted a “rape culture” at Duke.

Broderick did not reply.


So what is the new Duke policy that has so excited Gregory and Broderick?

Starting this semester, Gregory and Broderick of the Women’s Center, along with the Office of Student Conduct (Duke’s judicial arm), will be notified of all allegations of student sexual misconduct made to any university official (including RA’s in the dorms). Both will then involve themselves intimately in the process.

What, precisely, does Duke consider sexual misconduct? In addition to sexual assault, Duke defines sexual misconduct as “as any physical act of a sexual nature perpetrated against an individual without consent or when an individual is unable to freely give consent,” including “sexual exploitation, defined as taking nonconsensual, unjust sexual advantage of another for one’s benefit or the benefit of another party . . . The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity. Consent is an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions or words . . . consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity . . . Conduct will be considered ‘without consent’ if no clear consent, verbal or nonverbal, is given.”

Duke’s policy does not explain what constitutes “nonverbal” consent, nor does it guide students who participate in sexual activity how they need to record their consent (verbal or nonverbal) to defend themselves against future false charges.

As reflected in Gregory’s comments, the policy is concerned with the possibility of sexual misconduct through coercion. A “fundamental principle” of the sexual misconduct policy is the following: “Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.” [emphases added] How, precisely, should a Duke student be held liable for “perceived” power differentials creating an “unintentional” atmosphere of coercion? Duke’s policy does not explain.

Perhaps most alarmingly, the new policy dramatically expands the power of the Office of Student Conduct, headed by the due process-unfriendly Stephen Bryan. The office now has the power to investigate each and every sexual misconduct allegation, even if the accuser does not want to proceed. Bryan additionally told the Chronicle that “the OSC could hire an outside person to assist in conducting investigations into sexual misconduct.” These proposals, it’s worth remembering, come from the same university that repeatedly proclaimed it couldn’t investigate Crystal Mangum’s allegation of sexual misconduct, lest by so doing it obstruct justice.


“Accused students,” the disciplinary guidelines reassure, “can expect a presumption of innocence throughout the disciplinary process.” But the procedure tilts so heavily in favor of the accuser that it undermines even the pretense of a presumption of innocence.

The accused student does not have a right to an attorney. Instead, he can select a “member of the university community” to serve as an advisor. That advisor can attend the disciplinary hearing, but cannot ask any questions, nor even speak (except to the accused student).

The accused student does not have a right to confront his accuser. Instead, he has only the right to ask questions “directed through the hearing panel,” with the panel retaining sole discretion as to whether or not to present the witness with the question. And, of course, such a cumbersome process vitiates any right of effective cross-examination.

The accused student does not have a right to transparent scheduling. Instead, Duke guarantees only “a 120-hour (five day) notice in advance of a hearing.”

The accuser in a sexual misconduct case, moreover, receives three rights denied to the accused student. Each of these special rights tilts the process in the accuser’s favor.

First, Duke guidelines state that the sexual misconduct accuser “will be treated with respect and sensitivity [emphasis added] before, during, and after the disciplinary process.” The accused student, on the other hand, only must “be treated with respect throughout the process.”

How is a promise to treat the accuser but not the accused with “sensitivity” consistent with the “presumption of innocence” for the accused? Duke doesn’t say.

Second, Duke guidelines state that sexual misconduct “complainants will be given the opportunity to make opening and closing statements to a hearing panel.” The accused student, on the other hand, is promised no such opportunity.

How is giving a right to make opening and closing statements only to the accuser consistent with the “presumption of innocence” for the accused? Duke doesn’t say.

Third, Duke guidelines state that sexual misconduct “complainants have the right to receive—within the parameters of FERPA—a copy of the written information given to a hearing panel.” The accused student, on the other hand, is promised no such right. This is particularly ominous given Duke’s new ability to hire an outside investigator to look into sexual misconduct allegations. Yet while the accused student has no right to receive any of the “written information” that the investigator produces (what in a criminal case would essentially be the discovery file), his accuser can get all of the documents, except for those covered by FERPA.

How is giving a right to receive written material only to the accuser consistent with the “presumption of innocence” for the accused? Duke doesn’t say.


Responding to a biting series of columns by former Duke Student Government president Elliot Wolf, Dean Bryan suggested that as the purpose of the Duke judicial process is education of the offenders, not their punishment, the process didn’t need to provide the due process protections featured in a criminal investigation. A glance through The Shadow University, which traces the due process-unfriendly character of university judicial processes often lead to unfair or incorrect results, shows the absurdity of that statement.

But even accepting Bryan’s rationalization, the new Duke “sexual misconduct” policy would not be covered by the argument Bryan made to Wolf. Almost all of the misconduct described in the policy is criminal. (The exception would be the Orwellian assertion about “unintentional” coercion through “perceived” power differentials.) And the policy guidelines explicitly note that “complainants also have the right to report criminal sexual conduct to local law enforcement, which does not preclude university disciplinary action.” [emphasis added] Indeed, one passage in the new policy suggests that Duke could function as a conduit between the accuser and law enforcement: “OSC may also refer the matter to another university office and/or notify the appropriate law enforcement agency.” [emphasis added]

So from here on out, Duke has assigned itself the power to conduct a parallel investigation to a criminal investigation, or even to refer matters (with or without the accuser’s consent) to “the appropriate law enforcement agency” (the Durham Police Department and Durham County “Minister of Justice” Tracey Cline) for investigation and prosecution. Duke has also assigned itself the right to hire its own investigator—the role that Linwood Wilson played for Mike Nifong—to look into the allegations.

Dismissing the need for any guidelines, Bryan informed the Chronicle that the investigations will be handled on an “ad hoc” basis. Can the investigator use evidence from anonymous sources? Can the investigator speak to the accused student, and, if so, does the investigator have an obligation to remind the accused student of his rights? How will Duke ensure that the investigator does not use hearsay evidence? There are, incredibly, no written guidelines for how the investigator must behave—and yet Duke maintains that the system operates under a “presumption of innocence” for the accused.

And what happens with the file that the investigator creates if local law enforcement decides to pursue a criminal investigation? It’s not too hard to imagine Cline—who, after all, was going to be second chair if a trial occurred in the lacrosse case—imitating her mentor and going after Duke students if a future election bid runs into trouble.

If Cline subpoenas the Duke investigatory file, how will the University respond? If it invokes FERPA and refuses to turn over the material, imagine the opening for Candidate Cline to demagogue—perhaps, like her mentor, in an appearance at NCCU, something along these lines: “Duke is withholding material that would allow me to convict what even a Duke administrator has called the University’s ‘cunning’ and ‘manipulative’ sexual offenders. We shouldn’t let those rich out-of-staters—what even a Duke administrator has termed the ‘cream of the crop’ of the nation’s sexual offenders—get away with it.”

And if Duke turns over the material? A University process with no meaningful due process protections could be used to help convict a potentially innocent Duke student.


In her interview with the Chronicle, Gregory conceded that even Duke administrators—who, as we all have come to know, are not terribly sensitive to the possibilities of fraudulent rape claims—expressed fears that the new policy (coupled, of course, with a judicial process whose procedures overwhelmingly favor the accuser) would result in an increased filing of false claims of sexual misconduct.

Gregory had no such concerns: “We’re creating an environment that says, ‘This is not tolerated in our community,’ and when you create that environment, victims are more likely to come forward and seek help.” How creating an environment that says sexual assault isn’t tolerated (as if any elite university currently has a campus environment that “tolerates” sexual assault) guards against the filing of false sexual assault claims Gregory didn’t say.

Instead, Gregory sees the new Duke policy as an example for other universities to follow. That’s even though the one researcher she cited, David Lisak, has argued against the very type of procedure Duke has now set up. Last year, he wrote, “The less benign reality of sexual violence in the university setting also carries implications for university judicial processes. A judicial board would hardly seem the appropriate venue to deal with a sexual predator. Further, cases of non-stranger rape are extremely difficult to properly investigate and prosecute – they are in fact far more complex than the majority of stranger rapes. A proper investigation requires skilled and specially-trained investigators working closely with specially-trained prosecutors.”

In short, according to Lisak, Duke’s new “ad hoc” investigatory policy is exactly what universities should not be doing.


You might think that a university that witnessed the highest-profile rape hoax in modern American history would go out of its way to protect its students from future such hoaxes. At the very least, you might think that such a university wouldn’t design a procedure—motivated by many of the same politically correct impulses that fueled the rush to judgment in 2006—that even its own administrators worried could produce more false sexual misconduct claims.

Duke, instead, has gone in the opposite direction, adopting a policy that Women’s Center Director Gregory concedes is far more extreme than that at most universities in the country. Simply extraordinary.


Anonymous said...

So there's no right to be confront one's accuser; no right to an attorney; no right to open discovery.

There's a reason those protections are granted to defendants, and if Duke thinks it is making the process more fair and just by removing them, then it should consult a good law professor.

(You'd think they could find someone somewhere--Chemerinsky, or Dellinger, or ...you know, all those who spoke up against the modern repeat of Scottsboro in their own back yard...I forget the names...)

Anonymous said...

Well Ada Gregory must have meant to say in her letter that the "Duke rapist pervades Durham, and no one has heard of him. That's what puts him on a pinnacle in the records of crime. That if I could beat that man, if I could free society of him, I should feel that my own career had reached its summit, and I should be prepared to turn to some more placid line in life. But I could not rest, Johnson, I could not sit quiet in my chair, if I thought that such a man as the Duke rapist were walking the streets of Durham unchallenged. What kind of man is he you ask? He is a man of excellent education whose criminal strain, instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers. Dark rumors gather round him in the university town and I have endeavoured to break through the veil which shrouds him. He is the Napoleon of rapists, a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker, fenced round with safe guards so cunningly devised that it seems impossible to get evidence which would convict in a court of law so I have to take matters into my own hands and grapple with the affairs myself as this is the only resource left."
(apologies to AC Doyle ...The Final Problem)

Anonymous said...

This is why the civil suits need to keep moving forward. I am so proud of the lacrosse players and their parents for having the principles to try to force accountability and change.

Anonymous said...

Durham-in-wonderland... what a prescient naming choice for your blog, KC.

These folks prove once again they are not familiar with the First Rule of Holes. Seriously, it makes you wonder how these wingnuts made it as high as 104th in the Forbes ranking.

Why would any parents that cares about their son send him into the whimsical peril of Duke?

And, why would any parents that cares about their daughter send her to an institution that proclaims it has the cream of the crop in cunning and manipulative sex offenders?

Well, forewarned is forearmed.


gwallan said...

The implications of the research on undetected rapists – research that has largely focused on men in college environments – point to the similarity of these offenders to incarcerated rapists.

I'll add then...

From The Invisible Boy.

Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders, and sexually aggressive men, 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979), and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993).**

Contrary to Lisak's generalised portrayal, many rapists function from a sense of disempowerment rather than the reverse.

** I should point out that fewer than one in ten male victims become perpetrators.

Swapping to my more comfortable cynic hat it seems the Womens' Studies crew have won. Any rape is a crime against all women. They want the chance to punish "rapist, bastard, misogynists" themselves. Justice feminist style.

The lynch mob or the witch hunters or the inquisitors? Call them what you will but they won at Duke.

Hearken to the soft sobbing one can hear from afar.

As Iusticia gently weeps.

jamil hussein said...

To paraphrase a certain politician: "This war [against Gang88] is lost"

Unfortunately, this time it is true. You should just learn to love the New Order and Gang88 ideology.

I hope my kids will study abroad.

Anonymous said...

Great post! Since the Chronicle has become the public relations wing of the Duke Administration, this is the only place to read actual in-depth commentary about the reporting mandate. Moreover, the Chronicle disabled the comment section to the original online article.

William L. Anderson said...

One reads this and wonders if it is just one huge joke, an April Fool's prank being perpetrated five months later. But, no, we are dealing with Duke University and its leadership, and as it was said of the Bourbon Dynasty, "They learned nothing, and they forgot nothing."

Apparently, Duke's leadership and much of its faculty want something akin to "Groundhog Day," in which they repeat the same sorry scenario over and over again. As I have written elsewhere, there was a sizable contingent at Duke among the faculty, students, and administration that was bitterly disappointed when the whole LAX case fell apart and just could not accept the outcome. They have been seething for years, and now have decided to institutionalize literally everything that went wrong the first time.

We are not talking about people who are naive. We are talking about people who gladly would have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Nifong and Cline and ramrodded the LAX case to trial, and would have encouraged a "guilty" verdict no matter what.

Don't forget that the Hard Left such as CounterPunch and Indy Week had a very difficult time accepting Cooper's simple words of "innocent," and went on to create their own imaginary scenarios. To think that the leadership of Duke University wants to appeal to these people is just sickening.

Parents are sending their young men to Duke at their own peril. We already have seen a sizable portion of the university's faculty and administration try to aid a corrupt prosecutor in order to push false rape charges. Apparently, they want a repeat of that scenario. Welcome to "Groundhog Day II."

Anonymous said...

This new policy is laughable and another in a long list of embarrassments for Duke University. Lawyers from around the country must be rushing to set up shop in Durham in anticipation of the "easy money" to be derived from defending students who become vitims of this ridiculous policy and its administrators.

One can only wish that the perpetrators of the latest "goofball" antics had the IQ they presume Duke students are using in the process of commiting "unreported" rapes.

Tey nother sad chapter in Duke's history.

roper said...

In 2002, when my son was entering Duke University as a freshman, there was increasing publicity on a new social evil, known of as "date-rape" drugs.

I sat my son down and told him that he could never possess a date-rape drug, nor associate with any who did. Date-rape drugs were morally, and criminally, wrong.

But I also added, as a corollarly to that advice, that my son had to be careful about the women he associated himself with at college. That should he be falsely accused of any sexual impropriety, he should expect to receive no presumption of innocence on campus. He would be put in front of a kangaroo-court, and likely expelled, or worse, without any due process. Such was the politically-correct environment of the day.

And now, after several years, and many "lessons learned", as Dick Brodhead would say, the environment at Duke has only become more poisonous. As one poster at the Duke Chronicle noted, freshmen students are forced to learn about "Party Boy Chad", but no where are they warned about "Party Boy Jermaine". Or about the dangers of false allegations, with the attendent rush-to-judgment on the part of large elements of the Duke faculty and administration.

I am looking forward to the day when some future leader of courage at Duke University, beyond the days of Dick Brodhead, will remove from the campus the likes of Stephen Bryan and Ada Gregory. And when that day comes, I hope that it is pubicized for all, that the removals are described as "teaching moments", for which Bryan and Gregory thanked their judges for the sentences received.

Only Orwell could imagine a place like Duke University.

jim2 said...

I admit to confusion here.

Did not Duke assert in recent filings that its handbook and policies were not legally enforceable?

a Nice NJ Guy said...

The Golden Rule ...Them what's got the Gold makes the Rules.

Kangaroo Court
Star Chamber
A Dignified Hanging, followed by a Fair Trial
A delightful new system to game (distort, twist to one's own agenda & benefit)

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the rules are... If the administration of the rules is unfair, the outcome will be unfair.
Much of what we deplore about the LAX case is the injustice and abhorrent treatment of three innocent young men... in a system that has had relatively little criticism. [Yes, grand jury proceedings should be recorded, but that was not a root cause of the events].
But three years has not seen any meaningful punishment of the multitude of evil participants ... other than Mike Nifong being judged unfit to practice law. The Duke faculty enablers have enjoyed career advancement, Mangum is flying under the radar, Tara Levicy R.N. is pursuing her career in New England, Brodhead is still head honcho.

Stalin murdered 35 million Russians, despite a constitution that provided enormous protections to citizens.

Truly, Eternal Vigilance IS the Price of Liberty.

John Richardson said...

After reading this, I think the greatest favor Duke ever did for me was to put me on their undergraduate admissions waiting list back in 1975. Otherwise, I'd be an alumnus trying to defend my alma mater against the indefensible.

No justice, no peace said...

What time does the Duke committee meet to paper an investigatory process for faculty/administration sexual misconduct?

W. R. Chambers said...

Literally unbelievable.

What process produced the new policy?

Who signed off on it?

wfr said...

How sad. It must be clear by now, even to the casual observer or high school parent, that Duke University is in a serious decline.

Michael said...

An appropriate picture would be lady liberty with broken scales.

The Boston University med student would probably qualify as the predator/stalker type. I don't see BU taking draconian measures against their students.

Anonymous said...

Which is why I'm utterly uninterested in sending my kids to Duke. If they will hang their (demonstrably framed) students out to dry once, they will do it again. This is particularly evident since there was no punishment of the administrators and faculty who libeled the students.

Anonymous said...


A legal system designed by academics -- just what so many of our professors here want!

My prediction: The members of the faculty cadre of KC's Sunshine Band will spend 10,000-times more energy critiquing the outside legal system than they will Duke's.

I think it's a bet that I can't lose.


Midwest Chick said...

I have to admit that, as a female, I would be a bit... miffed... about those comments. Gregory seems to give the 'above average IQ' males a lot of credit without looking at the other side of the equation, which is that the women would also, according to her logic, have above average IQs if they were admitted to Duke and so should be more likely to recognize coercive behaviors.

Thinking like this fosters a culture of female victimhood, which is NOT something that should be happening at our elite universities.

Gary Packwood said...

The ‘‘Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005’’ is up for renewal next year (2010).

(This is a pdf)

There are Grant Dollars associated with the 'Act' covering a whole host of programs to include SANE services, Coordinating Personnel with the DA's office and Woman's Shelters.

(This is a pdf)

Grant Dollars = Jobs for those who have studied Woman's issues.

Job descriptions cover the usual federal requirements of (1) Training, (2) Coordination and (3) Advocacy along with not less than 25% of the total grant budget 'ear-marked' for (4) prosecutors.

Prosecutors (DA's) such as Mike Nifong!!!!

This new Duke University 'Sexual Misconduct Policy' appears to be a modern application of Proctor and Gamble's (P&G) famous marketing strategy... Convince the customers they have a problem for which ...only P&G has a solution. Shampoo, Toothpaste, Laundry Detergent and lest we forget, Bounty.

Convincing a group of great undergraduate kids they have a 'sexual misconduct' problem on campus is risky for Duke.

The kids on campus are going to be offended and they WILL 'game' the Woman's Center. I think we usually call those games...WAR!

Duke Alumni, what you say?

Debrah said...

It's curious that Ada Gregory remains visibly obscure from all accounts.

This page shows that her hometown is Greeneville, SC.

Not exactly the hotbed of activism.....feminist or otherwise.

Although she is the director of the Women's Center at Duke, photos are only seen of a few of the staff.

Could Gregory be cultivating an air of sinister mystery?

Might she fear that all those cunningly intelligent men on campus will be seeking their revenge?

In their dogged pursuit of justice, the valiant efforts of both Ada Gregory and Sheila Broderick toward saving the defenseless women of the world
might be compromised by the promiscuous use of the word "cunning".

The Diva has her nuanced radar screen wide open and has come to the conclusion that Gregory and Broderick are making a thinly veiled allusion to oral sex.

Such grotesque disrespect for "female bodies" !

Shades of Grant Farred conquering

This cannot stand and should be brought to the attention of the Duke administration!

Although these women might not even realize it, themselves, the Diva analysis finds that many women crave--consciously or subconsciously---that which they profess to be so "undesirable"......

......within the sexual context of male and female interactions.

Debrah said...

Lacrosse alert!

Ern said...

If I were a male student at Duke, I'd be making sexual misconduct claims against Pamela Bernard, Ada Gregory, and Sheila Broderick right now. If Duke's administration didn't treat those charges the same way that they treated the charges against the lacrosse players, I'd file a civil suit based on the failure to provide equal protection of the law. Two can play at that game.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why anyone would send their kids here, especially a boy! I have a daughter who is going into the 11th grade. I look at the FIRE listings of the schools, but I'm not sure how they would react to this or even categorize it. Does anyone know?
www.thefire.org. Do they only deal with speech?

Anonymous said...

The only answer for the young men at Duke is to take Dave Chappelle's advice and have young women sign a contract for sex. The show was funny. This policy is not.

Puck said...

Happily, neither of my sons was/is interested in Duke. If they were, I would tell them not to go.

Any heterosexual male who goes to Duke is either a fool, a risk-taker or a glutton for punishment (or maybe a basketball star, though it will be interesting to see what happens when one of Coach K's minions gets accused of something, justly or not).

Anonymous said...


This is like watching a bad play. The second act is worse than the first.


Anonymous said...

Here is what happened with Ada Gregory:

1. She talked to a Chronicle reporter who put her quote in quotation marks.

2. When the quote blew up in her face, Gregory got nervous and went into full CYA mode.

3. Gregory set up a strawman with her letter to the editor, claiming that the quote was unfairly manipulated to make her seem to claim that all males at Duke were sexual predators.

4. No reasonably sane person would conclude that she believes that all Duke males are sexual predators.

5. Instead of explaining how her quotation was taken out of context, Ada Gregory tried to SUPPORT her argument!



The height of hypocrisy is Brodhead claiming he couldn't get involved in the criminal justice system when 3 of his students were being lynched right under his nose, then setting up his own "rape" star chambers to work side-by-side with the criminal justice system.


Magnificent post, Professor! MOO! Tortmaster

LarryD said...

If I were a lawyer in the area, I'd be keeping all this sort of news in a file, for the next lawsuit against DU.

Creating a hostile environment, indeed.

And I wouldn't just plan on someday suing Duke, I'd be building a case against specific members of the faculty and administration. Possibly even planning on going after the Trustees.

The bad consequences of this are so foreseeable, any reasonable jury will gladly nail hides to the wall.

Anonymous said...

Worth pointing out again that if rape is so prevalent, then retention rate would go down. If it goes down, then so does Duke's ranking in US News and World Report (unless Duke is providing false info). If there's anything administrators don't want to see is for their ranking to go down.

Anonymous said...

Duke administrator Ada Gregory describes Duke University male students as the "cream of the crop" as "sex offenders" and, further, that these male Duke students are "more manipulative" and "more cunning" as sexual predators because they have higher IQs.

Where is the National media? Where are the TV cameras? Where is The Durham Morning Herald newspaper and its editorial writers?

Good gracious, people! This garbage from any institution of higher education is totally unacceptable.

Where is the research on which Gregory basis her outlandish statements? Who is the Duke administrator who supervises this person? Who approved this policy?

Will Dickie Brodhead acknowledge the inappropriateness of this policy?

I guess Ada Gregory believes that female Duke students do not have either the moral or intellectual IQ to deal with these "manipulative" and "cunning" male Duke students. So, the poor dears are doomed to be molested.

How disrespectful to all Duke students, especially female Duke students!

Duke 1965 said...

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the nuttiness in this story. Since Ted Bundy was highly intelligent, it stands to reason that highly intelligent Duke males must have a number of Ted Bundys among the Duke male population....... incredible.

As RRH as aptly noted, today's college students tend to love twisted irony, ala South Park, making fun of most all cultural phenomena. Imitating "Party Boy Chad" is a perfect example of such irony, as were the young women who went to Halloween parties at Duke in 2006 dressed as battered assault victims of the lacrosse team. As I warned my own daughter, though, you need to be careful, lest some nutty idealogue take you seriously and assume the worst.

Anonymous said...

In its current issue surveying various colleges and universities, GQ rates Duke as the "douchiest." Now we know why.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Duke alum. This once-great university has become an embarrassment. That's why I don't give them money. Too bad for them - I just endowed a professorship at another universiry which I attended. Duke won't get a cent.

Anonymous said...

To Professor Anderson: I was thinking that Duke had now codified the means to ensure that any allegation of sexual assault, true or not, would lead to a conviction. You wrote that Duke had moved "to institutionalize literally everything that went wrong the first time." Well said! Here's how your brilliant analysis looks on paper, from a legal perspective:

1. Mangum mangled her story on so many occasions that, by the time of trial, she would've been shredded on cross-examination.

DUKE POLICY: Weakens the ability of a defendant to cross-examine the alleged victim. (What kind of questions do you think Ada Gregory will allow a "cunning" male to ask a female who is a "victim"?).

2. The major downfall for Mangum and Nifong was the move to Judge Smith's courtrooom. (I believe with all my heart that if the Meehan testimony had occurred in Judge Stephens' court, Stephens would have -- illegally and unethically -- brushed it off and said, "You've now got your evidence; no harm, no foul.").

DUKE POLICY: Put someone who has already shown herself to have a conflict of interest (Ada Gregory) in charge of preparing the prosecution, and have another person, who has shown himself to have a lack of interest in due process (Stephen Bryan), to act as final arbiter.

3. When the physical evidence was lacking, Nifong had to dismiss Mangum's false claim of rape.

DUKE POLICY: Impose a sexual misconduct standard that is so ambiguous that a conviction is warranted if an "alleged" victim points to a naughty part of her body and claims, "He touched me there without consent."

4. Nifong was hampered by a budget and had to get Meehan to lower the price for his expert investigation.

DUKE POLICY: Duke can put its two billion dollar endowment behind any investigation, and, according to the new rules, they can investigate until the cows come home.

5. Reade, Collin and Dave were lucky to have very good attorneys who fought hard for them researcing the law and the facts and representing them in courtroom proceedings.

DUKE POLICY: No attorneys, not even bad ones.

6. Reade, Collin and Dave were entitled to discovery -- to see the evidence against them. This also turned out to be one of the major downfalls of the Mangum prosecution.

DUKE POLICY: No right to receive written investigation materials.

7. The attorneys for the lacrosse players could count on written rules that required Nifong and the Judge to do specific things. These rules included mandates about discovery, scheduling, what was admissible during hearings, ethical boundaries for all parties, etc ....

DUKE POLICY: Ad hoc mayhem.

8. The tide only began to change for the Duke Three when information began to be received by the public about Mangum's changing stories, the extent of Nifong's ethical violations, all of the exculpatory DNA evidence, Reade's alibi, etc ....

DUKE POLICY: A private affair.


I think a letter-writing campaign to the Duke Board of Trustees might help. Anyone interested? If it is explained to the Board, respectfully, that they are now on notice about the potential harm to innocent Duke students and the potential for future civil litigation claims, they might decide to pull the plug on this star chamber. MOO! Gregory

colagirl said...

. The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity. Consent is an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions or words . . . consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity . . . Conduct will be considered ‘without consent’ if no clear consent, verbal or nonverbal, is given.”

Shades of Antioch College and its date rape policy, perhaps?

I don't have kids right now, but if I did, I'd *never* send them here.

Panacea said...

All of the radical faculty at Duke seem to be connected like a club. Melody Ivins who shows up many times defending Tim Tyson and who is his research assistant worked at the Women's Center at Duke in the past.It's like the movie "The Invasion". If you don't join their club and adopt their ways they will do you great harm.

Debrah said...

Updated already by Anne Blythe.

Burness isn't going to like this.

Takes some serious time away with his scheduled masseuse.

Anonymous said...

Anecdotally, the takeover of Duke by its radical fringe, and its exposure by people like Prof. Johnson, is eroding its traditional base of feeder schools. One of my children is a tour guide at a "peer" university. He has noticed a substantial increase in the number of students on his tours who no longer show any interest in Duke. A significant number are from prominent prep schools. He has started asking parents why Duke is excluded from consideration. The most common answers are:1) safety of their child; 2) institutional hostility to mainstream or affluent students; 3) lacrosse fiasco.

Anonymous said...

Midwest Chick -
I was thinking the exact same thing. Yes the Duke students are (should be, but why they would go to DUKE under the current administration?)smart. But so are the opposite sex. Cunning date rapists pick a weak target. The whole thought process is beyond flawed as applying certain behaviors to an "elite" (used to be) university's learning environment. If anything it suggest female students are helpless and weak. A large part of the college experience is interacting with the oppostite sex, but these "policies" that are looking for a "hoax" would scare the pants onto me and I would barely want to speak to a female student on campus. I guess Duke is saying only date outside of DUKE students just to be safe.

Anonymous said...

Does this sound like the lunacy at Antioch College, parodied by SNL?

Anonymous said...

Duke officials have a terribly skewed view of their student body; one might even say it's neurotic.

Do the trustees ever step back and ask themselves "how did we get so goofy around here"?

Anonymous said...

I am deeply ashamed to be a graduate of Duke University. Bob Hyde, Duke '67

Anonymous said...

Is Gregory a Communist?

hman said...

I foresee consequences of this sort of thing that are far worse than a loss of popularity for Duke Univ. This policy displays an absolute lack of concern for the futures of its male students. It is now openly and officially stated what only gradually became apparent during the Lax fiasco - the lives of young men are regarded as expendable in the pursuit of leftists/fem goals.
After absorbing this lesson from Duke and, fairly or not, attributing it to society as a whole, no guy could be expected to care one bit about society in general, much less volunteer to do anything to protect it.

Anonymous said...

I can recall many people half-jokingly suggest that Duke students keep a criminal defense lawyer on retainer. I'm going to now suggest that Duke students also need to have a civil contract specialist available at a moment's notice. Or, the smart Dukie will print out the forms here and here and use as needed. MOO! Gregory (NOTE: forms are for parody purposes only).

Anonymous said...

Colagirl was right - this is right out of the Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio handbook. Perhaps those in charge at Duke should read their history and see what happened to Antioch. The college is no more (McGregor campus, on the outskirts of town is a continuing education facility). The buildings stand vacant, the campus is weed-covered and derelict, and its professors have either left to find other jobs (few available that are tenured these days) or they are still in the neighborhood (can't sell their homes) trying to find something to do to keep a roof over their heads.

Fifteen years ago no one would have thought that Antioch would bd no more - but their crazy policy regarding activities between the sexes led to their decline - who would want to go there (and this was a school where part of its allure was a sexual freedom not found at other places)when written permission was needed to even kiss someone.

Also, is it only me, but is there not more than a whiff of the old canard that women are unable to fend for themselves in this new policy? So a man makes an advance - can't the woman say, buzz off? Does every clumsy fumbling have to be a case for the courts be they student or state?
What about those female students who are anxious to prove that they are tigers in the sack and then wake up remorse the next day - and cry rape? This policy will only encourage more of this of activity - and who, I ask, will a jury believe - a sweet young thing who claims she was violated against her will or a hulking young man who says that she wanted sex? The answer is obvious.


sceptical said...

Another excellent analysis of an absurd situation at Duke.

For another commentary, see:

Panacea said...

N.C.State is hosting a discussion on racial profiling and Duke professors will attend.

The event is being held in hopes of opening dialogue on issues relating to race in light of the recent incident involving Harvard professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, Mass., police.

Pierce Harlan said...

The problem in the standard for sexual assault is the necessity for "clear" words or actions. You see, the girl must not only consent -- consent alone is not enough. The consent must be "clear." What does "clear" mean in a legal context? Blacks Law Dictionary defines "clear" as "Obvious; beyond reasonable doubt . . . free from doubt . . .." In addition, in the law, we generally have THREE levels of proof: (1) By a preponderance of the evidence, and (2) clear and convincing proof, and (3) beyond a reasonable doubt.

CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF means proof that is greater than a mere preponderance of the evidence (preponderance of the evidence just means more likely than not, even 51% is a preponderance of the evidence). In contrast, CLEAR AND CONVINCING means "highly probable" or proof that results in "reasonable certainty."

Take this example: she takes off her clothes and jumps in bed with the guy and starts removing his clothes. In the real world, and to any reasonable person, that means she's assenting to sexual relations. But in Duke's world ("Wonderland"), is that an invitation for the guy to proceed with actual intercourse, or does he need some "CLEARER" manifestation of assent before he can do that? Must she either say, "Let's proceed with sexual intercourse," or at the very least, grab his penis and guide it into her vagina?

In other words, you can have a case where the University finds she DID manifest her consent, but it was not "clear," so guess what? He's a rapist in the school's eyes.

That single word "clear" is their way to adjudicate against the guy if that is their desire.

Anonymous said...

So, from this we can take away that the Duke administration's only source of embarrassment over the entire lacrosse debacle was that those horrible young men cunningly avoided conviction, their factual innocence notwithstanding.

Extraordinary? Unbelievable?

I wish.

One Spook said...

This was an amazing post. During the course of the Duke lacrosse hoax, I have read hundreds of reports and articles from numerous writers. In my view, no one writes as well as KC Johnson about the nexus of extremist ideology on American campuses to university policies.

And, this post has generated some of the most enlightening comments this blog has seen, some by astute readers who have never commented here.

Duly noted is a terrific comment by "MOO Gregory" commenting as "MOO Tortmaster" about the utterly ridiculous statements of Ada Gregory. Let the record show that there is no connection between MOO Gregory and Ada Gregory.

Duke’s new policy is clearly an attempt to “game” the reporting of sexual misconduct when in fact the actual instances of such conduct appear to be decreasing. Ignored is the very real possibility that the horrific results of Mangum’s false accusation might well have made some male students more cognizant of their own potential misbehavior.

But the reaction of the extremists to the lower number of reports is reminiscent of Thavolia Glymph's woefully misguided comment in 2006 that "since the DNA results were returned Monday, we [have been] moving backwards" because the DNA test showed that no lacrosse player could possibly have raped false accuser Crystal Mangum. These extremists view the success of fewer reports of sexual misconduct as "moving backwards" and therefore a threat to their sexual misconduct fiefdom, so they respond by an attempt to force more reporting. In that regard, they remind me of an arson investigator intentionally setting fires.

Secondly, I believe that this new Duke policy provides even more ammunition for the plaintiffs' arguments in their pending lawsuits against Duke University and Duke administration.

It is almost impossible for me to believe that Duke University could create yet another policy that is more unconstitutional, illegal, oppressive, and antithetical to the welfare of both male and female students at Duke.

One Spook

Unknown said...

I would love to be on jury dealing with a civil case against Duke because of one of these sanctioned witch hunts. I would take their endowment, multiple that sum by three, and turn it over. This is the only way these administrator are going to learn that turning these ideological zealots loose on their college has a steep price.

Anonymous said...

Could some lawyer please post a general release and hold harmless form that ALL male students at Duke could carry on their persons at all times- perhaps it should be the same size as a condom, or some company could make it a condom wrapper??? It should have space for signatures of both parties, two witnesses and be dated.

Would it need to specify which particular sexual activity is agreed to? Hmmmmmm

Chris Halkides said...

This policy is a thumb in the eye of due process. I asked a colleague of mine who was a graduate student at Duke to comment. "I saw one key number in there - 5 reported sexual misconduct cases from a student population of over 13,000. Not exactly a plague, is it?
And if the undergraduate student body is considered to be "above average IQ, more cunning and manipulative", imagine what sexual terrors the medical students, law students, and graduate students, all of them even more sophisticated than the undergraduates, must be.
As one of those grad students, I am not sure if they are even talking about the same school. The Duke females were neither dumb nor slutty - I dated some number of graduate and undergraduate women, and "misconduct" of any kind was just out of the question. Duke was an environment of civility and respect - even as much as we partied, we had to face those other people later (it's not that big a place), so misbehavior was rare. I can not honestly recall any "incidents" during my 7 years there. We had much more trouble with pre-meds cheating, an issue I never felt Duke handled well, either.
I think some of those folks in those articles just need to get a life."


One Spook said...

Anon writes @4:18 PM

Is Gregory a Communist?

No, "MOO Gregory" is an avowed supporter of Obama, and a longtime supporter of Chief Illiniwek

Wait a minute! Do you mean Ada Gregory?

Do your own homework --- write to her and ask her!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

No one commented about the effect of the rape on 11 February 2007 of a Duke coed at a fraternity, where drugs, a loaded revolver, and a positive rape kit did not even get sanctions or expulsions from the University Administrators. The fraternity is an African American official Duke organisation and the victim is a former Duke white female, who transferred to another university.

RebeccaH said...

All it will take to destroy this unjust, guilty-unlikely-to-be-proven-innocent system of progressive re-education, is for one or two of the accused to bring lawyers to the kangaroo courts anyway, and if treated unfairly (which they will be), to serve a subpoena and sue the university and the individual "claimants" for as much money as their lawyers say is doable. The accused students can transfer their credits to other universities (if they win a civil suit, they can probably transfer all of them), and Duke's reputation will be stained forever.

Sounds like a hard-core cadre of radicals has them by the balls, anyway.

No justice, no peace said...

They cannot win the game so they change the rules.

I'm reminded that when the hoax first started the Duke University records for criminal activity actually indicated more smoking violations than sex crimes.

When the statistics indicated no sexual assault crisis existed they modified the presentation. The smoking statistics were quickly removed.

Check out pages 16 and 17 of the report "SECURITY AT DUKE UNIVERSITY AND DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: 2008-2009; Safe and Secure at Duke: a Shared Responsibility"

Note: Duke University had no reported Hate Crimes for the years 2005-2007

You'll notice "rape" is not to be found. On the other hand they do measure forcible and non-forcible sex offenses. Was the sex show sanctioned by Duke a non-forcible sex offense?

Traveling Sex Show at Duke Draws Criticism
Show Featuring Strippers Criticized in Wake of Lacrosse Rape Case

What is laughable is the claim that no "Hate Crimes" were reported from '05-07.

One wonders if having 88 faculty members and the administration actively attempting to send three innocent men to prison for thirty years qualifies as "shared responsibility" to ensure the safety of their students or might that be considered a "Hate Crime"?

Who in the world would knowingly pay $200,000 to send their child to Duke?

Who would be foolish enough to donate any money?

Anonymous said...

Damn these people at Duke . . . they are witches waiting a witch hunt . . . again.

Anonymous said...

The people in charge at Duke were 100% wrong about the Lacrosse Hoax and they come back stronger than ever. Why does ANYBODY allow their children to go to Duke?


Debrah said...

This page lists the requirements of the position of Programs Directors at the Duke Women's Center from last year.



Specific Skills and Competencies

Position requires thorough understanding of gender issues in a college community and the ability to work with a diverse group of faculty, staff, students, alumni and community members to address them. Expertise in education and service provision from a feminist, anti-oppressive framework is essential. Strong interpersonal, communication and writing skills are needed. Ability to provide short-term crisis support needed.

Application Instructions

To apply, send three references, writing sample, resume and cover letter to

*** Ada Gregory at ada.gregory@duke.edu or Box
90920, Durham, NC 27708, and
complete the Duke HR application at http://www.hr.duke.edu/jobs/main.html
reference requisition # 400229537. Priority consideration given to
applications received by August 11th.

Duke University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.

Anonymous said...

This policy does not sound terribly different than those in force at many universities around the country. Not to say that it is defendable or logical, but this sort of perspective seems to be quite common.

It is clear to me that anyone accused of some sort of sexual assault by one of these star chamber review boards has no choice but to immediately and forcefully make their own sexual assault accusation against their accuser. This is the only way of evening out the process and gaining the same rights as the first accuser. As I understand the policy, those rights would then have to be granted to both sides.

Debrah said...

Give me a break.

Gregory was with the Kenan Institute for Ethics only last year?

Have they all gone mad?

Do these people bounce around the Duke campus playing musical chairs?

The Kenan Institute must have a strange definition of "ethics".

February 19 – Fight Club

Martin Liccardo of the Duke University Women’s Center and Professor Suzanne Shanahan and ***Ada Gregory*** of the Kenan Institute for Ethics.

Debrah said...

Ada Gregory can be heard here on WUNC.

Debrah said...

Earlier this year, Gregory at a Women's Networking Event

Debrah said...

A Gregory scoop from 2000.

Anonymous said...

Who was it that claimed the Chronicle wasn't censoring? They put an article about Mike Pressler winning on appeal in his case against Duke and John Burness in the online sports blog. Not even in the "Sports" section. Certainly not in the top-of-the-page "News" section. They hid it in the lower right-hand side of the webpage, forcing you to ferret it out by scrolling down the page. Here's the link:


I accused the Chronicle of censoring by hiding the article in the sports blog while the newspaper editors put "dining articles" in the top-of-the-page "News" section. Since the comment is subject to moderation, we'll see if it gets posted.

Duke suffers a bad court beatdown, and news of it gets relegated to a virtual warehouse. The Chronicle has become Brodhead's stooge, and the writers and editors should be embarrassed.

jcr said...

It has been abundantly clear since the Nifong debacle that Duke doesn't have a rape culture, it has a witch-hunt culture.

The failure of the university to discipline the lynch mob in any way made this inevitable.


Anonymous said...

I think that an Imam could set up a mission on the Duke campus and be very successful in converting male students to Islam. Any attempt to close it down would be an example of 'Islamaphobia' and contrary to Duke's PC standards. Also, CAIR would be only a phone call away. It would not be long before the female students would begin to convert. Then there would be a subculture on campus that would be untouchable by Duke's policies, or else they would violate the religious rights of a minority.

mb said...

I find this comment particularly interesting: "The investigations of these crimes can be further complicated by offenders who may also be categorized as antisocial or sociopathic, who are of above-average intelligence and can be highly manipulative and coercive, not only with victims but in the investigation process. Universities gather a lot of people with above average intelligence, so it stands to reason that campuses might see more of these kinds of individuals than the general population.”

I think that Gregory is projecting here. Consider that one of the main things that blew apart the LAX hoax was the fact that people, especially Mangum and Levicy, had trouble keeping their stories straight. Now, from UPI we know that false allegations of rape are much more common than most other types of false reporting; I believe UPI reported 30 - 40%. However, the most rigorous and scientifically-valid study of false allegations reported by female college students, conducted by Eugene Kanin, found rates for false allegations of 50 - 60%, considerably higher than in the general population (at least as far as the evidence shows). What this says to me is that women of above-average intelligence are likely better at keeping their stories straight so as not to get caught in a lie. Again, Mangum's main problem was she just couldn't tell the same story more than once. We've seen all kinds of 'crimes' fabricated on campus for the sake of 'making a statement' (e.g., fake hate-crimes, racial intimidation, etc.) so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if in her capacity as a feminist activist Gregory has at least had some experience with women who made false allegations of rape in order to make a statement.

Therefore, as I said, I think perhaps Gregory is projecting from her own experience here and not basing her opinions and theories on sound evidence.


Anonymous said...

Despite the many problems in contemporary academia, working within the system is almost always preferable to seeking solutions imposed by legislators.

North of Detroit

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 9.38:

Yes, it's sadly true--since, given the political climate, legislative efforts to involve themselves in curricular matters (as we saw in FL and OH) almost always involve themselves with the anti-evolution movement, which wants to use the process to mandate instruction of a religious viewpoint in college science classrooms (rather than, as we should be doing, calling for science instruction--with its search for the truth--as the model for all college & university instruction).

As a private institution, in any case, there's nothing NC legislators could do with Duke. The federal government could do something, indirectly (i.e., by linking federal aid to colleges establishing due process guarantees), but it's hard to imagine legislation that would be tight enough to be effective.

SeeBass said...

Parents who send their kids to a university like this (and there are a lot of them), deserve whatever happens because the writing is on the wall.

No justice, no peace said...

8:44's point raises a few question(s).

There is no indication on the reported forcible and non-forcible crime statistics of the following:

1. Thee race of the accused.

2. Whether or not the accused is/was a student.

3. Whether or not the accuser is/was a student.

4. Where the accused resides.

5. Whether or not the accused is even a male.

They do separate on-campus and off-campus events.

But that raises another question regarding whether or not the Duke PD includes Durham PD numbers and vice versa.

Which raises another question. Do the Duke PD and Durham PD define "crimes" the same?

Is so it appears that is about to change.

No justice, no peace said...

The Duke PD crime report I linked above has the following on Pg. 21,

"...The Duke Police Department handles criminal matters at all university-owned facilities located within a reasonable distance from the main campus. Matters occurring at properties that are more distant from the main campus are handled either entirely by the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction (i.e. City Police or County Sheriff’s Departments) or handled by such agencies in conjunction with Duke Police..."

This certainly creates additional questions about whether Richard Brodhead misled everyone regarding jurisdictional authority over events at the Duke-owned home where the hoax originated.

Gary Packwood said...

Colagirl, cks and others have made mention of Antioch College and the need to learn from Antioch's history.

I most certainly agree and wonder if Duke is becoming for the Southern States what Antioch was trying to be for the entire nation.

Lord knows Duke is not operating on a shoe-string budget as was Antioch.

But if Duke is trying to wrap their arms around the Antioch culture for the Southern States, Duke's Division # 1 sports and Greek organizations need to either be pushed out or pushed aside.

If we follow the Antioch 'play book' over the last fifty years we will find their law school merging with another university to become The University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clark School of Law.



Is there a historic AABlack Law School that is being groomed to merge with Duke Law as a central component for Duke to become the University of the South?

cks is correct. Read and study that Antioch history and imagine Antioch with a US$3+B endowment.

Ni Justice, No Peace said...

"Who can endure a doctrine which would allow only dentists to say whether our teeth were aching, only cobblers to say whether our shoes hurt us, and only governments to tell us whether we were being well governed?"

--C.S. Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost

Tim G said...

What a godsend for the Duke Lacrosse plaintiffs. The Duke administration promised a review of their policies in reaction to the Lacrosse incident.

The plaintiffs now know what that looks like. It will be interesting to watch the Duke administration explain how the system they are implementing would prevent another Duke Lacrosse.

Anonymous said...

Rape Myth #143, brought to you as a public service by the good folks at the Duke University Women's Center:

"Men have a power differential in relationships at Duke."

Rape Fact: Women at Duke are just as smart as the men. They are just as cunning and manipulative. Some women actually want to have sex with men. Women at Duke understand that if they elevate the volume of their voice, and use words like "help" and "rape," it will attract attention. Moreover, women at Duke know that a conviction for rape, just or not, can land a man in jail for 20-30 years. A false accusation of rape, on the other hand ....

Don Eskridge said...

For the life of me, I cannot imagine why any ambitous, intelligent male would attend this university.

These people are nuts. I wouldn't send my son there even if Duke PAID HIM to play on the basketball team.

Anonymous said...

Can't the accused students simply refuse to participate in any of these proceedings? After all, Duke policies are not binding obligations.

Anonymous said...

xutag77, you make a great point when you write: "It will be interesting to watch the Duke administration explain how the system they are implementing would prevent another Duke Lacrosse".

The Duke administration is too busy attempting to drum up the next hoax.

miramar said...

Re: "Conduct will be considered ‘without consent’ if no clear consent, verbal or nonverbal, is given.”

I'm no attorney, but how would a young man prove that verbal consent was actually given? If the woman later indicates that she did not give consent, either because she wants to get back at the guy or because her memory is fuzzy or because she has psychological problems, how could he possibly defend himself? Rather than facing a he said-she said problem, it seems that the Office of Student Conduct would automatically conclude that if the woman does not specifically remember giving consent, then consent was not given. Guilty as charged!

In addition, the policy indicates that "The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains [sic] and gives [sic] consent in each instance of sexual activity." (That should be obtain and give, by the way.)

If that is Duke's policy, then the administration should give each student a Sexual Activity Checklist, where the woman has to initial every single part of the process, from holding hands to S&M.

Ah, l'amour!

skwilli said...

I'm no lawyer, but aren't these policies unconstitutional 5 different ways? Is the genius Gorelick behind these magnificent pieces of legal prose. She has created so much trouble wherever she has been, I can't imagine she doesn't have a hand in this one as well. Count me in if there is any class-action against these scheming unglorious basterds (sic). Thank for the post KC.

mb said...

Anonymous 1:47 PM wrote: "Rape Myth #143, brought to you as a public service by the good folks at the Duke University Women's Center:

"Men have a power differential in relationships at Duke."

Yeah, but what the good ladies at the Duke University Women's Center fail to reveal is that the differential works against men and in favor of women.

Oh heck, let's just paint the real picture at Duke:
(Ada Gregory decked-out in her finest Red Queen outfit, shouting)
"Off with his head!!"

Anonymous said...

"In addition, the policy indicates that "The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains [sic] and gives [sic] consent in each instance of sexual activity." (That should be obtain and give, by the way.)"

Why? "each" is singular...

Jim in San Diego said...

I guess I am going to my grave with no understanding of why Duke alumni stand silently by.

The alumni as a group have distinguished themselves in life. They, as a group, have demonstrated they know how to get things done.

They know how to push the buttons of life, so to speak.

So, does no one know, now, how to form a committee? Make persistent phone calls?

Set up an advocacy group? Start a petition? Hold a press conference? Write an article?

Place a phone call to a member of the Board of Trustees? Buttonhole a trustee at a school function? Propose an alternate candidate for the Board of Trustees?

Contact an acquaintance on any of the administrative staffs? Call openly for an investigation? Ask for the resignation of ineffective administrators?

Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Or, is it that the alumni, individually and as a group, simply DO NOT CARE about what is happening right before their eyes?

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

The university student judicial process is the ultimate kangaroo court, and it appears that Duke University has the ultimate student judicial process.

Any student caught up in this kangaroo process will just file suit in federal court and cost Duke more dollars. What is the opposite of due process? Because whatever that is, those are the "rights" afforded defendants by the Office of Student Conduct.

Ada Gregory is so far out in left field that only one person on the Chronicle website bothered to support her. Brodhead is getting the university he deserves.

Np Justice, No Peace said...

What is the difference between Duke's CCI and the White House going into my children's classroom next week?

What exactly is a White House Fellow and who authorized them to come up with any program to teach my children anything?

Wow. This is unprecedented.

azides said...

I have been reviewing the Channon Cristian and Chris Newsom murder trials in Knoxville, Tn and happened across talk of media bias; which one would assume in a case of that specific persuasion. I then, of course, came upon the Duke case in my meanderings and started reading!

I am absolutely shocked by all I have read about the case! I hope that the three men are able to continue their existence without this whole travesty affecting them. One would hope that the President would deliver an apology to them in person over the air ... if only just to absolutely exonerate the men in public so that their is no question about their innocence or character.

As a logical, European physical scientist, who now resides in the US, I have no comprehension of the U.S. legal system and how it would allow such miscarriages of justice to occur.

Why is it that crime cannot just be resolved? Why is it that crime rates are not reported honestly? Why is it that cases cannot be evaluated on their merits? How can evidence be pushed aside in favour of an alternate agenda? What is justice without a rational and logical explanation of the events that had occurred no matter what the race, standing of the accused nor media interest?

Needles to say, I will be reviewing your blog from time to time. Thanks!

azides said...

Oddly, I was born in Scarborough!!! North Yorkshire, United Kingdom!

Bumper said...

There is a moment of horrible irony here. This draconian system of injustice is eerily similar to the one that was in place at colleges and universities in the fifties and sixties, one that was the product of conservatives hell bent on protecting the "institution", and the rules and procedures were more often than not stacked against women. It was torn down by the hippy generation (liberals) often on the basis of civil rights. We now see it being brought back by the very people who railed against it back then. It just seems now the deck is being stacked by liberals against men with no regard to their rights, civil or otherwise.

Apparently what goes around, really does comes back around. Payback a bitch.

Anonymous said...

Congrats to Mike Pressler!!

The post has left me nearly speechless. For anyone looking for a "clarifying" statement from Duke about their thinking in the aftermath of the LAX fiasco, this new policy offers unmistakeable clarity...


QA said...

“Anonymous at 9/1/09 6:36 PM said...

Could some lawyer please post a general release and hold harmless
form that ALL male students at Duke could carry on their persons
at all times- perhaps it should be the same size as a condom, or
some company could make it a condom wrapper??? It should have
space for signatures of both parties, two witnesses and be dated.

Would it need to specify which particular sexual activity is
agreed to? Hmmmmmm”

This is an easy one:

No such “General Release” exists that would effectively "hold harmless" male students at Duke under this "Policy", or ever will

The Duke Policy under discussion is invincibly formulated to
defeat innocent defendant students.

Any such Release/Contract could be dismissed by the
faculty-prosecution-sexual-assault-corroborators as an Adhesion Contract:

“n. a term used in contract law. Adhesion contract is a contract
between two unequal bargaining partners and does not allow for

It can be thought of as take it or leave it kind of contract where
one party is tied down to accept whatever terms of conditions are
put forth by the other powerful party.”

In other words, such a “Release” could be dismissed as made under
duress even if the “victim” testifies/protests that she herself was the aggressor, and the alleged “victimizer” was actually the victim.

Duke is now beyond the pale, probably irreversibly.

a Nice NJ Guy said...

100 comments in 2 days...

this topic sure engendered attention

Debrah said...

Why am I not surprised that someone like Sheila Broderick would team up with two other loopy dames--Tema Okun and Serena Sebring?

These mental midgets with their wild sexual imaginations are quite entertaining.

Debrah said...

Broderick needs to stick with her landscaping and flowers.

Perhaps she's exploring creek beds with Orin!

duke09parent said...

The Duke.edu section on sexual misconduct has illustrative examples of what Duke considers sexual misconduct. This last one curled my hair.

"Andrew and Felix have been flirting with each other all night at a party. Around 12:30 a.m., Felix excuses himself to find a bathroom. Andrew notices Felix slurring his speech. Andrew wonders if Felix went to the bathroom to vomit. When Felix returns, the two begin flirting more heavily and move to a couch. As the conversation continues, the two become more relaxed and more physically affectionate. Andrew soon suggests they go back to his room, and Felix agrees. As they walk down the stairs, Andrew notices that Felix looks unstable and offers his arm for support and balance. When they get back to his room, Andrew leads Felix to the bed and they begin to become intimate. Felix becomes increasingly passive and appears disoriented. Andrew soon begins to have sexual intercourse with him. The next morning, Felix thinks they had sex but cannot piece together the events leading up to it. This is a violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy. Felix was clearly under the influence of alcohol and thus unable to freely consent to engage in sexual activity with Andrew. Although Andrew may not have known how much alcohol Felix had consumed, he saw indicators from which a reasonable person would conclude that Felix was intoxicated, and therefore unable to give consent. Andrew in no way obtained consent from Felix."

(emphasis supplied)

Since the Duke folks say this is "in no way" consent, they must believe that scenario is rape. Of course, it relies upon the impossible situation, that the accused would admit that his lover "appeared disoriented".

Debrah said...

Martin Liccardo who works with Gregory and Broderick has a degree in Women's Studies from the University of Utah.


As a result, he's no doubt an expert on such issues as Food for Thought -- Women on Top.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson: Would you, please. send this post(and the accompanying comments) to newly elected Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Duke University, The Honorable Dan Blue?

I still have hope that Chairman Blue's view of the world is not as myopic and self-centered as that of Bobbie Steele.

Sooner or later, Duke will be rescued from those who have stolen its reputation and integrity as an institution of higher learning.

Anonymous said...

Oh great, fill the student judicial process at duke with people that hate men like Ada Gregory or that hate due process like Stephen Bryan. Then make the rules so one-sided that a male student cannot possibly win. Ensure that the only people who can talk at these sham trials are the prosecutors.

And you have a recipe for disaster. This doesnt help the women at duke either. If there is a real problem, the defendant will just take teh case to state or federal court because the rules are so damnably unconstitutional! Also, ya got the women's center telling the women of duke that they are not as smart as men.

thats a lose/lose situation for duke and brodhead and women at duke.

miramar said...

To anonymous 9/2/09 8:42 PM

Re: "In addition, the policy indicates that "The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains [sic] and gives [sic] consent in each instance of sexual activity." (That should be obtain and give, by the way.)"

Why? "each" is singular...

They are singular, but that sentence should use the subjunctive tense, which would be obtain and give rather than obtains and gives. Makes me wonder if the college president with a Ph.D. in English actually read all this.

Anonymous said...

The silence and passivity on the part of Duke alums is frightening. Here is a once prestigious institution on the brink of hurling itself into the abyss. Will no one take a stand against this insidious insanity?

Anonymous said...


I have closely followed the Christian-Newsom torture murder case in Knoxville, Tennessee. This is the exact opposite of the Duke Hoax. There WAS a horrific crime. The national press does not want to cover it. The judge in the case has bended over backwards to give the accused fair treatment. For example, the court appointed the best defense attorneys in Knoxville to represent the suspects. Picture, if you will, RCD getting Joe Cheshire, Kirk Osborn, and the others free of charge. The judge also severed the case into 4 separate trials for each suspect. This enables each to blame the others.

For the first trial, the judge brought in a jury from Nashville. The only way he could have favored the defendant more would have been to obtain a jury from Durham NC. The jury found the first defendant to be tried guilty and gave him life without parole.

Google Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and find the details of the agonizing torture that was inflicted on two likable young people. Think about what their parents are going through.


No justice, No Peace said...

Vermont teen sentenced to prison in 'sexting' case

It seems direct contact may not matter, per this link above.

"...An 18-year-old pleaded guilty to reduced charges Sept. 3 in Vermont's first "sexting" case, in which he allegedly directed two teenage girls to videotape or photograph themselves performing sex acts and send him the results..."

This is especially disconcerting given the approach Duke administrators took with the electronic exchanges among their student lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

"but that sentence should use the subjunctive tense"

Whoah. Your right (just kidding! About the your/you're part. Not about you being right) -The poster formerly known as 8:42

Debrah said...

Letter in the N&O.......Lacrosse Lessons

Anonymous said...

It appears that the Women's Center at Duke University has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts in an effort to further its agenda. In an official report to President Brodhead about the judicial process at Duke in May 2006, the following appears:

"It is also clear that alcohol use and abuse is the major underlying factor in both off-campus and on-campus student misconduct. Conversations with the staff of the Women's Center reveal that alcohol is involved in 70-80% of the roughly 60 cases of sexual assault complaints that are received by the center per year."

How is 5 or 7 or 10 equal to "roughly 60"? The entire report can be read here. My first inclination is to believe that the Women's Center ginned up numbers to be sure that their agenda became attached to the Crystal Mangum Hoax. But, even if there really were 60 sexual assault complaints 3 years ago, why completely gut the Duke system of handling sexual misconduct allegations when their occurrence had been reduced by 1,000 percent in the last 3 years?

This is what the Chronicle reported according to the Clery Campus Security Report:

"The five forcible sexual offenses in the 2007 Clery report represent the fewest number of incidents in the past three years-seven were reported in 2006 and 10 in 2005, according to the report."

That quote was taken from the recent article in which Ada Gregory described the "cunning" Duke men. I guess it is also possible that Duke under-reported the number of sexual assault cases in 2005 to the federal government in violation of the Clery Act. Duke has done so much to harm itself just to protect its image. Here is what the Clery Act provides:

"The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $27,500 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs."


One Spook, I've decided to take back my name! I will not let Gregory sully it. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

By the way, the attorneys for the lacrosse players should look into this "Party Boy Chad" issue. How long has this nasty, offensive and discriminatory stereotype been used to foment anti-white male hatred on campus? Coming from the Women's Center, that makes it an official Duke Administration stereotype. Party Boy Chad is the visual emblem of Duke University's loathing for, discriminatory attitudes about, and illegal behaviors towards, the lacrosse players. It would be a perfect visual aid for closing arguments. I hope the attorneys subpoena all of that evidence. MOO! Gregory

Panacea said...

On July 10, 2009 the N&O ran a blog under the Campus notes. The topic was "At Duke: Ask the boss a question." Tell university president Richard Brodhead all about it.In question form.Brodhead is now accepting questions via this website for an interview that university publication Working@Duke
So fire away.
Take notice they wouldn't take questions that were critical of Brodhead or that brought up any serious issues related to the Duke Lacrosse and the gang of 88. And none of the questions asked at the N&O were answered.

No justice, no peace said...

If a tree fell in the woods...

If the Duke faculty waked out would anyone notice?

a Nice NJ Guy said...

What's been happening with the REAL Duke Rape Case .. the coed raped at a Black frat party ?

Anyone charged ? Trial date ?

One Spook said...

MOO Gregory rises early to watch his Illini lose 37 - 9 to Missouri, and writes @ 7:01 AM:

"One Spook, I've decided to take back my name! I will not let Gregory sully it. MOO! Gregory"

Atta boy, Gregory! I knew you wouldn't let a cunning runt like Ada Gregory upstage you!

And, you make an excellent point about the disparity between "Women's Center Reports" and what universities report to the government and the public.

Similarly, schools like Duke never allow those inflated Women Center Reports to appear in their recruitment brochures that are mailed to parents and prospective female students.

And the patently false yet frequently cited "one in five female college students are victims of sexual assault" meme that is an "article of faith" among America's loony distaff set also never appears in the Clery Reports or in the slick recruitment brochures of Duke.

On the positive side, with only five sexual offenses in a school year, a student working part-time "manning" the phone in the Duke sexual assault hotline could get a lot of studying done ...

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Great point about the brochures and Duke Magazine, One Spook. I guess the message (or raw data) depends on the audience. MOO! Gregory

P.S. Didn't the Hawkeyes get a little lucky with two blocked field goal attempts?

mb said...

If a Woman Says "Yes" But He's Too Wasted to Hear It, Is It Really Yes?

duke09parent quoted the sexual misconduct section at Duke.edu: "Andrew and Felix have been flirting with each other all night at a party. Around 12:30 a.m., Felix excuses himself to find a bathroom. Andrew notices Felix slurring his speech. Andrew wonders if Felix went to the bathroom to vomit..."

Irrespective of this charming vignette, I've always been quite bothered by the assumption in these scenarios that only the so-called 'victim' is intoxicated and thus functioning under conditions of diminished capacity. From my days as a student in college I can recall lots of scenarios where everybody was wasted - men, women, pets, house plants - so I'd like an attorney to chime in here: Couldn't a person (i.e., Andrew, Party Boy Chad, et al.) accused of rape and who was drunk at the time of alleged incident claim diminished capacity as well re. mitigating circumstances in getting consent? After all, we let women off with a pass vis-a-vis responsibility for their behavior in these situations if they've been drinking, so why not the guy? In other words, if she didn't say "yes," enthusiastically or not, but he was too wasted to hear it, how does that play out?

Or would this be like pleading diminished capacity due to excessive drinking in DUI case?

a Nice NJ Guy said...

One Spook at 9:20 PM said:

"Atta boy, Gregory! I knew you wouldn't let a ******** **** like Ada Gregory upstage you!"

Kindly explain exactly how you know that Sweet Ada Gregory is a devious pygmy.

Debrah said...

Yes, "Duke Dad".

Don't you just love the misogyny?

Ushered in as clever debate.

Only men who haven't seen the outside---let alone, the inside---of one in a decade or more talk that way about women.

Peter said...

So what we need to do is install cameras in our bedrooms and keep the footage just in case. Keep the webcam running with sound on so you can hear her screams of joy. Let's see if Duke's panel will accept that as evidence!