While Wahneema Lubiano—she who wrote, without any citation, that “many whites . . . might not ever be persuaded by appeals to reason, to what we ‘know’ and agree to be ‘truth’—that all men/women were created equal, for example”—is busy tending to all Duke undergraduates through her position as a departmental director of undergraduate education, three other Group members made news last week.
Duke’s Ariel Dorfman is a professor who:
- publicly asserted that something “happened” to Crystal Mangum, based solely on the version of events presented by the disgraced Mike Nifong
- publicly thanked protesters who had presumed the guilt of students at his own institution;
- committed himself to “turning up the volume” regardless of “what the police say or the court decides”;
- and, after the version of events about which he had expressed such public certainty turned out to be false, signed onto another statement in which he adamantly refused to apologize for his rush to judgment.
To give Dorfman the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it might be said that the Duke professor is a fanatical “anti-rape” activist, someone who believes that whenever a woman claims rape, the accusation must be treated as true; and that those targeted by such accusations must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the evidence.
Such views, of course, would contradict the academy’s traditional support for due process—but, as we all learned in the lacrosse case, such views are in short supply among many Duke humanities and social sciences departments.
Even assuming the above, however, what explanation exists for the below screenshot, from the “Free Roman Polanski” petition?
So, to sum up: Dorfman believes that Polanski—a man who pled guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor, in an event in which his victim (and, given the guilty plea, she can be called a “victim”) claimed that Polanski had drugged her and then pursued her throughout the house; and a man who then fled the country before his sentencing hearing—should be freed; and he also believes that it was appropriate to thank guilt-presuming protesters in a case involving his own students, a case in which the claims against his students turned out to be false.
The guilty should go free and the innocent should be punished. That sounds a lot like the judicial philosophy of the Pinochet regime in Chile, against which Prof. Dorfman once wrote so eloquently.
Then there is the case of Group member Michael Hardt, whose latest publication was subjected to a blistering review from City Journal editor Brian Anderson.
Here’s the description Anderson provided of Hardt’s co-author, Antonio Negri: “Three decades ago, the Italian government believed that he was the secret intellectual leader of the leftist terrorists called the Red Brigades and that he was the architect of the group’s 1978 kidnapping and murder of Christian Democratic Party leader Aldo Moro. Unable to build a sufficient case to try Mr. Negri for murder—he has always denied the allegation—Italian authorities convicted him of ‘armed insurrection against the state.’ Facing 30 years in the slammer, Mr. Negri scooted to France, where he remained, a philosopher in exile, until 1997, when he returned to Italy to serve the remainder of a reduced sentence. He is a left-wing guru whose field work has occurred far from the faculty lounge.”
As for the book itself, here’s some more from Anderson:
For the revolution to succeed, three supposedly corrupt forms of the common must be destroyed. Some of the harshest language in “Commonwealth” targets the family: Mom, dad and the kids might not know it, but they are part of a “pathetic” institution, a “machine” that “grinds down and crushes the common” with “the blindest egoism.” Messrs. Hardt and Negri cry: “Down with the family!” The two other killers of the world’s spirit: the corporation and the nation. When the multitude seizes “control of the means of production and reproduction,” we’re promised, the evil trio will wind up on Marx’s ash heap of history.
The authors warn the rulers of the capitalist world that if they want to survive a little longer, they need to enact reforms, including global citizenship, a right to income for everyone and participatory democracy. But Messrs. Hardt and Negri don’t think that their warning will be heeded. Revolution will erupt—and soon. It could be violent, a prospect that does not seem to trouble them: “What is the best weapon against the ruling powers—guns, peaceful street demonstrations, exodus, media campaigns, labor strikes, transgressing gender norms, silence, irony, or many others—depends on the situation.” Pirates, the rioting Muslim banlieusards of Paris and the Black Panthers all are praised in Commonwealth as heroes of disruption.
Anderson’s devastating summary: “Messrs. Hardt and Negri make little effort to build arguments in support of their wild assertions and predictions. They write as if ignorant of the 20th century and of much else, including economics and social science.”
Finally: the case of Cathy Davidson. All who followed the lacrosse case closely know that . . . memory problems . . . bedeviled Prof. Davidson in 2006 and 2007. After all, this is the same professor who preposterously claimed that in the week between March 29, 2006 and April 5, 2006, Duke students "felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house. The insults, at that time, were rampant. It was as if defending David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann necessitated reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women."
In fact, during that week, Mike Nifong dominated the airwaves, virtually no one was defending the lacrosse players (much less doing so through "pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans," activists flooded the Duke campus with "wanted" posters of the lacrosse players, and Richard Brodhead made time to meet with African-American students who demanded recognition of the lacrosse players as guilty of a "hate crime" even as he refused to meet with the lacrosse players' parents or lawyers.
Now, Emory professor Mark Bauerlein has revealed that Prof. Davidson's . . . memory problems . . . predated her experience in the lacrosse case. Bauerlein notes that, in Davidson's 2004 apologia for the overwhelming political imbalance among the Duke faculty, "Either as a department member or a member of the APT [appointments, promotions, and tenure] committee, I've not encountered any Duke faculty member being harassed or discriminated against because he or she is conservative."
Yet Bauerlein has uncovered a letter from Davidson that contradicts her firm 2004 assertion. In an extraordinarily high-profile event from the pre-Keohane/Chafe Duke, then-English professor Stanley Fish (chairman of the department of which Davidson was a member) demanded that Duke not appoint any member of the National Association of Scholars to an APT or distinguished professor position. As Bauerlein noted, "Obviously, Fish's request marked a patent act of discrimination on ideological grounds."
Anyone who heard her 2004 statement might have assumed that Davidson was unaware of Fish's request. Yet Bauerlein has uncovered a letter from Davidson in the Fish Papers, in which she praised Fish's performance as chair. She also noted, "Although I do not agree with the tactics that he (reportedly) suggested with respect to the NAS debate, I also do not at all see him speaking for me in this matter and find it curious that, in the name of free speech, his voicing of his views is being condemned." (In other words: Fish wanted to exclude professors from appointments committees because of their political or pedagogical beliefs--and yet he was the victim in the affair.)
In any event, it appears that sometime between the early 1990s and her 2004 remarks, Prof. Davidson . . . forgot . . . about Prof. Fish's efforts to harass or discriminate against Duke faculty members "because he or she is conservative."
Given her recurring . . . memory problems . . . perhaps it is better that Prof. Davidson no longer does her own grading, and has ceded that basic professional responsibility to the students in her class.
Professors Dorfman, Hardt, and Davidson, it’s worth reiterating, are among the Group of 88's most prestigious scholars.
I guess Davidson could just be forgetful, but forgetting something like the Fish defense is hardly likely. Another possibility is that she had to be part of the groupthink and then subsequently tried to cover up her knowledge of the Duke discrimination movement. Davidson didn't have to "go there" in her speech, so it shows how much she prizes honesty.
By the way, the KKK and the Arayan Nation have a First Amendment right to free speech even when that speech incites others to discriminate or condones the practice of discrimination. I guess it is fine to discriminate, though, as long as you are doing so alongside the right groupthinkers.
Ariel Dorfman? He's also the guy who wrote How To Read Donald Duck, isn't he?
I'm sorry, but someone who deconstructs Disney as being imperialist propoganda - and isn't doing so as a joke - is already someone who's not intellectually trustworthy. The fact that he's a sympathizer with the group of 88 ends up not being surprising in light of that.
Frankly, while I greatly respect your level headed, unvarnished poursuit of truth, these poseurs you are outing will never change.
I could have saved you thousands of lines of type. I'm old enough to have seen this kind of behavior from the leftys since the 60's.
The root cause is that the vast majority of academia, is in fact, not up to the task. This is why they they can take no criticism, no matter how valid, and will never admit errors, no matter how egregious.
Your ordeal, on this site, is a perfect archive of an example of extreme political correctness, fostered by academic nitwits.
God help us!
Dorfman's latest escapade sounds more like the Dorfman (a.k.a. "Flounder") from "Animal House."
So, a Duke faculty member (Michael Hardt) teams up with a murderer to write a book demanding the forced destruction of the family. This was the central policy of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, which murdered almost a third of the country's population.
At least we now know the kind of people who are honored at Duke University.
A young Ariel Dorfman along with an old one from a 2007 film festival.
Dorfman's son Rodrigo seems to enjoy the fruits of capitalism with his array of artistic endeavors.
Which, by the way, would garner all the attention of a Juan Valdez poster at a flea market without the activist cachet of Papa Dorfman.
But the Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri duo eclipses everything.
One must wonder what magnificent obsession exists between a 49 year-old faux scholar radical and a 76 year-old one who, at least, has some street cred propping up his monstrously loony views.
As for Davidson.......she's a mess.
And of dungeon-level standards.
The real story behind the story of Duke's Gang of 88 and their ilk is that their very existence is one of artifice and fraud.
And to the core.
Capitalism deserves to die, Messrs. Hardt and Negri believe, for it has abused and corrupted "the common." The common isn't just "the fruits of the soil, and all nature's bounty," they tell us; it is the universe of things necessary for social life—"knowledges, languages, codes, information, affects." Under capitalism, nature is ravaged, society brutalized.
The above should incense even the most casual readers.
Such grand poseurs.
The practice of affecting attitudes is dangerous inside the academy or inside any field of purported serious endeavor.
But, as we know, these Gang of 88 players are neither thespians nor musicians.
Just bad actors who are out of place.
Therefore, like all superfluous forms of entertainment, their ostentatious performances must be funded by the very same characters whom they lambaste and tout as "evil".
The Diva ponders......perhaps it's true that we grow to hate that which we have grown to need.
Duke University and its hydra-headed forces exist because of a tobacco family whose fortune was bled from back-breaking labor.
Capitalism in all its supply and demand glory rendered the fortune that founded Duke.
Capitalism keeps the doors open and capitalism keeps goofy word minstrels like Hardt and his colleagues cell-phone-Twitter-laptop-and "publishing"-happy.
It's jarring to even listen to someone like Hardt.
So obviously torn between the echoes of evil capitalism and his global world.....as he munches on the swizzle stick of his (sans créme) Starbucks latte.
Any adult who has reached the age of 30 knows how utterly ridiculous this all is. Only those who have experienced nothing outside a campus can even begin to think this way.
Someone must pay the tariff on the podium used by these paper dolls of the academy so they will have a place to be pasted for public view.
Capitalism can be used for evil purposes and it also can be used to turn an ugly tobacco heiress into someone remotely cosmopolitan.
Rather like the fruits of capitalism being used to construct a facade for professors inside the academy so they can pretend to have value.....
Hmmm...........the Diva is thinking.
Perhaps capitalism is evil after all!
This post feels weak and contrived as if the axe has been ground to the handle.
Ariel "The Dorf" (to paraphrase Animal House) Dorfman's desire to have Roman Polanski freed speaks volumes about this entire crowd. I expect continued crap like this from Davidson, but at least she seems to have stopped putting her signature to things. And, oh I wish I had the ability in my day to do my own grading! I'm positive I could have bettered my brother's 3.99!
To the 12.50:
Thanks for the kind words! (I note that you didn't challenge either the facts or the conclusions of the post.)
TO the (12:50 PM)--
Oh hi, harmony baby!
Re: the 12:50 PM
This blog merits a better class of troll.
Why do jealous, mean-spirited, petulant toads feel brave when they fling spiteful comments from hiding.
hmmmmm ..... must be a small-minded, untenured outlook ...
It is really not surprising that someone like Ariel Dorfman would condemn the innocent Duke Lacrosse players then defend a convicted rapist on the basis that the convicted rapist is one of the artistic or intellectual elite. The elites simply believe they are above the law and morals and common decency.
To the 12:50
I agree. I'll leave it to the faithful to figure out what the point of the blog is this week.
To the 3.35:
I'm sorry you weren't able to comprehend the post. I try to write at a level that will reach either most college-educated people or most people who are engaged with contemporary political and legal affairs, but I realize that occasionally such an approach means that readers--like you, in this instance--will be unable to "figure out" the writing.
That said, it's my sense that the blog isn't written at a more difficult level to comprehend than most general political or legal affairs blog--or, indeed, than most newspapers.
Is Dorfman a Communist?
As a past ardent reader, and now a sometime visitor to this blog, I thank you, K.C.. My youngest is off to college next year and we have agreed he will not seek Duke admission.
That said, the Duke peers are just as bad, just less visibly so. But what is a father to do?
TO "North of Detroit" (3:35 PM)--
You have an enormous economy for words.
I'm looking forward to your next syllable.
12:50 - let me spell it out for you.
The point of the blog this week is to demonstrate the certain illustrious members of the Gang of 88 did not engage in a one time act of lunacy and duplicity during the lacrosse hoax. No, rather, they continue to act like lunatics without any concern for being principled or intellectually consistent or creditable.
And Duke Dad - your attempt to trivialize KC's work and the reactions to it actually as the opposite effect of what you likely intend. KC's blog reminds me of just how badly Duke has gone wrong. I am a Duke alum, a former scholarship athlete who came from poverty and appreciated everything Duke provided me (of course, with Terry Sanford at the helm, Duke was a place with immutable values and principles). My two kids, with scores and grades well above Duke's mean averages, eschewed Duke for other schools, and the lacrosse incident clearly had something to do it. And so did the antics of the Gang of 88. What struck me about the lacrosse incident as particularly damning for Duke (in addition to the awful treatment of the lacrosse students) was that it called into question just how Duke would handle a real rape or sexual assault - and those crimes often have suspects and victims who don't fit the Gang of 88's narrative. The answer was supplied with the Rouse incident - and it was handled poorly. Parents indeed ought to be concerned, and KC's continued reminders are delightful in the sense that he is so effectively getting under the skin of the academic echo chamber.
Rush Limbaugh has mentioned the Duke Lacross case today as one which supports his view that he is being unjustly vilified based on false accusations; just as Mike Nifong willingly promoted a falsehood so has the media today accepted untrue quotations attributed to Rush to promote a public smear.
The work of all those people who signed the petition in support of Polanski should be boycotted.
Just from a quick glance, most do not appear to be American; however, Julian Schnabel is one name of some acclaim.
I suppose for characters like Dorfman common decency is eclipsed by the recognition of his work and what financial rewards might have been rendered from the Polanski collaboration.
"Dorfman's work often deals with the horrors of tyranny and, in later works, the trials of exile. His most famous play, Death and the Maiden, describes the encounter of a former torture victim with the man she believed tortured her; it was made into a film in 1994 by Roman Polanski starring Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley."
It's always amusing to see actors like John Malkovich, Alec Baldwin, and others appear in programs giving humanity and meaning to the jaded and incomplete renderings of people like Dorfman.
Perhaps someone will write a new script for a grand performance at the Kennedy Center illustrating Dorfman's views on how society should deal with rape......when it actually occurs.
And which rape "victims" are considered worthy of what he might call "human rights".
Perhaps in Dorfman's mercurial global world his good friend and collaborator Roman Polanski was simply breaking in an adolescent virgin all those years ago and actually was doing her a favor!
Many of the glitterati feel that Polanski's "artistic talents" merit him a pass for his sexual proclivities with a drugged, unwilling, minor which he admitted to but wanted (and some still feel should occur)three innocent young men who were victims of a hoax to be thrown to the wolves. What accounts for the perpetrator of a real crime (Polanski) to be lauded while RCD, who did nothing yet were railroaded by a prosecutor and abetted by a feckless university administration and BOT who each had their own agendas to pusue while the msm called for the three men's heads?
To a large extent one has to believe that politically correct thought has come to trump all. Polanski is viewed by the glitterati as a victim - therefore any "indiscretions" that he engaged in are not his fault (much like the finding that Ms. Mangum cannot be blamed for her falsehoods because of her background which led her to drug and alcohol abuse and questionable legal employment so that she could "make something of herself"). That a young woman was raped by Polanski as he battled his inner demons - well, if one follows the glitterati logic - it was not really all that bad for her.....so too with those who feel that the suffering of RCD and their families (that will be ongoing in some form as long as they are alive due to the fact that their names will always be associated with the hoax)is unfortunate perhaps but, it is nothing compared to the sufferings of one Crystal Mangum who only did not have the advantages of RCD and who was trying to make her way through college the best way she knew how. Is it any wonder that so many are so disillusioned and feel that things are really going to hell in a handbasket?
I just got off the phone with Jennifer Prather, who is Dorfman's assistant.
I had read a related article which listed her as editor of Global Perspectives.
Seems she makes a living exploiting her boss' international flair.
After a rather lengthy chat, I feel totally repulsed by this woman---someone I would not know if I passed her on the street.
She said Dorfman was not defending what Polanski might have done decades ago. He just didn't like what was done to him recently in Switzerland.
She basically sat back and giggled the whole time and then threw out a few sound bites we've heard ad nauseum.
She asserts that Dorfman didn't sign the Listening Statement saying that Reade, Collin, and David were guilty, but because of the way women and minorities were treated.
Then I burst out laughing and told her that WOMEN AND MINORITIES WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO RECEIVE ATTENTION ON CAMPUS!
She then became sarcastic and said that .....well.....it's too bad that the guys had some trouble after hiring strippers and getting drunk....(a very slimy and sarcastic tone, this woman).
I talked for quite a long time outlining all the usual facts and she basically laughed it off.
I told her I'd just read KC's latest post and wanted to get a response on the matter.
These people are cretins.
I asked if she had a life or any experience outside campus for her to think that it was so horrible for young men to have hired strippers---the way Coach K's basketball players had done for years.
Prather replied..."Yes, I have a life."
What a doughnut. What a louse!
Then I told her that we should ask Mary Semans what she thinks about Duke having a professor who actually signed a petition supporting the rapist Roman Polanski.
Then I told her that her boss can only exist inside a world of ambiguity and lies.......and that he is a parasite.
Then I excused myself and said goodbye.
I forgot to add that Ms. Prather told me KC has used the Listening Statement for his own purposes and has misrepresented it.
(Oh, but of course!)
Just talked to John Drescher at the N&O.
He's intrigued by the Dorfman turnabout as it pertains to "rape victims".
Could be a good story.
To the 3:35 PM,
Prof. Johnson's current post features three members of the Duke's ruling ideological nomenklatura, keeping us up-to-date on their ... adventures in academialand.
If Prof. Johnson can be criticized for anything, it's for his continuing fantasy that academia can or ever will cure itself of its diseases.
In case this hasn't already been mentioned, I see where "Minding The Campus" announced recently:
"We're pleased to announce that KC Johnson, the indefatigable chronicler of the Duke non-rape case at his blog Durham-in-Wonderland, is joining Minding The Campus as a contributor. KC's voluminous reportage and analysis proved crucial to the collapse of the false Duke rape charges. Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy wrote, 'If bloggers were eligible for Pulitzer Prize... I would nominate Brooklyn Professor K.C. Johnson.' We entirely agree. Now you can check in regularly for KC's thoughts at Minding The Campus."
And parents are still allowing their sons and daughters to attend this institution of higher learning? Amazing.
I don't find it especially startling that Dorfman has associated himself with the “Free Roman Polanski” petition. The G88 and their friends across the nation are all spoiling for a constructional fight to expand entitlements and alter the constitutional guarantee for due process and probable cause.
If there is even a remote possibility that an 'incident' of any type will allow the Gang to pry open the US Constitution for discussion they are going to strike while the iron is hot or create a hot iron to strike [as they did with the lax case].
People forget that the ERA is alive and well. The equal rights amendment [The ERA] was introduced again in the House of Representatives on July 21, 2009, by Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat from New York. And their position is outlined on their web site.
Dorfman and the Gang all know that if passed into law, implementation of the ERA is going to require significant and substantive changes in how we define, approach and administer on a day-to-day basis ...due process and probable cause.
And if they are successful, Dorfman and friends want to be there when the credits roll across the screen.
Anyone who reads Brian Anderson's review of Michael Hardt's hallucinations in Hardt's book with Antonio Negri should be shocked. Hardt sounds more like a terrorist than a teacher.
Hardt's meanderings clearly demonstrate the use of mind-altering substances and/or psychiatric pathology. Normally, I would have feelings of sadness and empathy for an individual , like Hardt, who lives so far from reality. However, I am more concerned about all of those students who are exposed to Hardt's illness. Someone at Duke University must realize the fraud that is perpetrated by Duke promoting Hardt as one of its outstaning faculty members.
It would be interesting to see the reactions if Duke publlished Hardt's drivel in its alumni magazine or sent a copy of Hardt's position on "family" to each student's parents along with each semester's tuition statement. Better yet,perhaps President Dickie Brodhead would like to take Professor Hardt along to make presentation of Hardt's "scholarly works" to the large corporations Brodhead regularly asks for philanthropic gifts to help pay faculty salaries.
I think the mess at Duke is far worse than anyone could ever imagine.
Duke graduate student Angela Perez had one of the most insightful comments about Dorfman and about the whole Listening Ad that I have read:
Interesting article from Hickory NC about the Duke Lacrosse.
NAACP hurt credibility in lacrosse team case:
In its editorial on the North Carolina NAACP convention in Hickory, the HDR states, "The NAACP has labored long and diligently to ensure equal rights and opportunity for all people" (Oct. 8).
"For all people?" The nature of an organization is sometimes discerned by its performance under extraordinary circumstances. Stuart Taylor is a contributing editor for Newsweek, a columnist for National Journal and co-author of "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case." Taylor illustrates:
"What you would hope might come of a case like this (the Duke lacrosse case) is that the NAACP of North Carolina, for example, seeing what has happened to black people like the Scottsboro boys many times in the past ... what an opportunity to establish a coalition of people against abuse in the criminal justice process.
"Well, it didn't happen. The local NAACP and other local black leaders ... basically crusaded to attack the lacrosse players. They joined the mob. They misrepresented the truth regularly, repeatedly and grossly. They supported the rogue prosecutor long after he had been proved a rogue.
"They threw away the opportunity to build that cross-racial coalition, and they threw away whatever shreds were left of their own credibility." (Taylor in a BookTV.org presentation on "Until Proven Innocent," Sept. 11, 2007).
The N.C. NAACP's performance, to its credit, was not much worse than that of the New York Times and a large segment of the Duke faculty.
You can also view it here.
Anonymous said at 10:30 PM...
Is Dorfman a Communist?
According to Wikipedia:
"From 1970 to 1973, Dorfman served as a cultural advisor to president Salvador Allende."
We will set aside for the moment why someone who was born in Argentina and raised mosty in the U.S. would be advising a Chilean leader on "culture". The better question is if someone had "served as a cultural advisor to chancellor Adolf Hitler" for the entire duration of his regime, would it be sound intelligent to ask if he is a Nazi?
Regarding my earlier posting, about KC's continuing quixotic quest for that vigilant and aroused faculty which will finally stand up to the maniacal culture that dominates academia, I noticed this in today's Wall Street Journal, in a article headlined, "Academia Goes Silent on Free Speech":
"In 2006, even as the police had barely begun their investigation, Duke University President Richard Brodhead lent the prestige of his office to faculty members' prosecution and conviction in the court of public opinion of three members of the Duke lacrosse team.... To be sure, it was only a vocal minority at Duke who led the public rush to judgment. But the vast majority of the faculty stood idly by, never rising to defend the presumption of innocence and the requirements of fair process...."
"As the controversies [at Duke and other campuses] captured national attention, professors from other universities haven't had much to say in defense of liberty and discussion either. This silence represents a collective failure of America's professors of colossal proportions."
KC, it's time to wake up from dreamland. Join us in urging legislation that will end the domination of American universities by their most anti-intellectual and morally-corrupt inhabitants. (Btw, I think it's long past the point where you can argue that this is not the case, but if you want to try, then I'm ready to try to make the opposite side of the argument. Heck, you've already done some of the research for me.)
To the 11:15 AM on 10/14/09 who said:
"And Duke Dad - your attempt to trivialize KC's work and the reactions to it actually as the opposite effect of what you likely intend."
You have either
-- misunderstood my rather clearly stated views, or
--erroneously attributed my authorship to statements I have never espoused.
Do try to be more accurate in future references to my thoughts.
I am 11:15 - the problem is that I have been all too accurate - your failure to rebut my inaccuracies is revealing.
Please, refrain from hectoring. I did not speculate on what you were thinking. I merely informed you why it is the KC's postings were relevant.
I am not some wimpy effete over credentialed nuancy wonk - the problems at Duke are there to see - elliptical responses like yours only self-authenticate that proposition.
Cheers. Hope to see you at an alumni event.
To the anonymous at 11:15 AM,
Why do you think that Duke Dad was "attempt[ing] to trivialize KC's work and the reactions to it? I think he was complimenting the post and saying that the troll was not ready for prime time.
To the 11:15/5:25 PM -
Let's put a lid on this .... you obviously have confused my nick with the author of something else you read.
I'd appreciate you referring to the source which sparked your diatribe, with particular attention to the author.
Baring your incredible misinterpretation, the problem is that you have NOT "been all too accurate".
"your failure to rebut my inaccuracies is revealing"
well, since I never said it, rebuttal is moot.
The issue of "hectoring" you may take up with Andromache.
My position is that you have disparaged me, for comments I never made, and for views I do not hold.
"I am not some wimpy effete over credentialed nuancy wonk"
That is nice.
"elliptical responses like yours only self-authenticate .... the problems at Duke are there to see "
My response to you was completely direct:
..... You have either
..... -- misunderstood my rather clearly stated views, or
..... --erroneously attributed my authorship to statements I have never espoused.
"Hope to see you at an alumni event"
Not very likely, since (as my nick describes) I am the FATHER of a child who attended Duke.
"From 1970 to 1973, Dorfman served as a cultural advisor to president Salvador Allende."
That would be immediately prior to the CIA funding Allende's assassination.
Anonymous said at 8:16 PM...
"From 1970 to 1973, Dorfman served as a cultural advisor to president Salvador Allende."
That would be immediately prior to the CIA funding Allende's assassination.
That would also be 36 years prior to your attempt to falsify history.
Is Anonymous_at_8:16_PM a Communist?
The Chronicle recently posted a puff piece on Dorfman. All comments, including mine, reminding the world of his behavior were deleted. Duke faculty may not be criticized.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Mayor Bill Bell had this to say at an on-campus forum
“When Mike Nifong was appointed to that position, there were a lot of people who had positive things to say about him,” Bell said, adding that he believes the city handled the 2006 lacrosse case well. “We’ve never had the type of media exposure we had during the lacrosse case.... The leadership, in my opinion, did an awful lot to quell what could’ve been a really emotional altercation, framed by what the national media was trying to do.”
The actually let my comment remain
There is so much untruth in that statement it's hard to know where to start.
1) The two large local papers, the Durham Herald-Sun and the Raleigh News and Observer, were the two biggest cheerleaders for Mike Nifong's campaign to falsely convict three innocent men. The national media took their cues from the local media.
2) Durham's police chief Chalmers was missing in action - on leave with pay , as I recall it - during the whole incident. As I recall the excuse for a months long absence was he was taking care of his mother. Bell and no one else stepped in to find some way to fill the leadership vacuum.
3) The Durham PD abrogated it's responsibility to be in charge of the investigation by turning it over to Mike Nifong.
4) Durham PD Officers Gottlieb and Himan's actions, among the actions of others, will likely cost the city of Durham millions. Yet they were never investigated or disciplined in any way. Gottlieb was allowed to retire and Himan moved out of state and is even now an officer elsewhere. God help them.
5) Here's what DPD Officer Addison has to say on a local listserve shortly after the incident.
Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:20 pm message # 1066
Durham CrimeStoppers needs your assistance….
On Monday, March 13, 2006 about 11:00pm, the Duke University Lacrosse Team solicited a local escort service for entertainment. The victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 Buchanan. The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community…
I guess that's Bell's version of Durham trying to "quell what could’ve been a really emotional altercation".
Post a Comment