Every so often, a post or comment comes along that even I find extraordinary. Such was the case with a recent post by Nicole Kubon, a self-described “modern day feminist, struggling between the desire for social change and bitterness towards the depraved decadence of our backward culture."
Kubon, who claims to possess a Masters’ Degree in social work from the University of Michigan, posted an item stating, “If you like the Duke Lacrosse Team because they are really good at running around, throwing balls to each other in little nets, and getting high after games, it might be hard to hear that they allgot inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.” [emphasis added]
Not even the false accuser Crystal Mangum ever claimed that she was sexually assaulted by all the people at the party (though she did seem to make one assertion, which she quickly retracted, that 20 people had raped her). And, more generally, I was curious as to what evidence Kubon possessed to substantiate her assertion, and in particular whether she had read the official reports of the North Carolina State Bar and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office.
In reply to an e-mail from me, Kubon asserted that in making her claims, she relied on this March 26, 2006 posting from Brendan Nyhan. Yet this particular Nyhan post was far from his last word on the matter--it certainly didn't reflect his overall views on the lacrosse case--and all the post did was to (correctly) suggest that the story was likely to get a lot of attention and to alert readers to the (error-riddled) Khanna N&O “interview” with Mangum.* In this respect, Kubon is sort of an extreme version of the Group of 88, someone who rushed to judgment about the case and then simply closed her mind to any and all inconvenient data points that emerged thereafter. Even most of the Group of 88, however, are not so fantastically closed-minded. (Houston Baker, Grant Farred, and perhaps Wahneema Lubiano would fall into Kubon territory.) In a follow-up e-mail, Kubon then retracted her claim that she had relied on the March 2006 blog post for her own writings, but refused to supply any additional material on which she based her assertions. She also declined to state whether or not she had read the AG’s report.
Quite oddly, Kubon further informed me that her original post hadn’t proclaimed that all (or even any) of the lacrosse players were guilty. I’m not sure how else anyone would interpret the following line: “They all got inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.” [emphasis added]
Kubon also appeared to be quite angry that commenters had criticized her . . . cavalier . . . use of facts. She promised that, since she “believe[s] that something happened that night,” she will not issue a correction of her post, and that she has no obligation to actually substantiate her claims with facts or evidence.
It is, to put it mildly, rather difficult to come up with a response, other than utter contempt, to a figure who all but gloats about her closed-mindedness while making heinous accusations against people.
*--modified for clarity, and to stress that, given his position as a Duke-based blogger as of 3-26-06, there was nothing, in any way, improper about Nyhan's post.
35 comments:
As you have noted before, K.C., this is why the lawsuits are important. Now, True Believers such as Karla Holloway and Wahneema Lubiano are not going to be swayed by any facts, any more than Kubon or the Justice For Nifong crowd. Facts don't matter to them (unless they are accused, of course).
Furthermore, Duke's defense in the suits (if the suits ever go that far) is to claim that the lacrosse players at Duke were SO depraved and violent that it was easy to believe such charges against them. Now, they have no such proof and they know it, but they are going to equate someone peeing in the bushes with rape, and there always is an idiot or two at the NY Times to play the role of the parrot.
Unfortunately, that is the reality of higher education today, along with most of the media. We no longer can count on people in those professions to have common sense. There are some (like K.C.) with good heads on their shoulders, but too many are like Karla Holloway and the others at Duke like her.
Is Kubon a Communist?
Your conclusion is too kind.
People are entitled to be close minded. They are also entitled to make accusations they have a good faith basis to believe are true, heinous or otherwise. What they are not entitled to do is intentionally or recklessly make accusations that are false and baseless.
Slander?
Depositions are needed to get the truth out. If that was ever questioned, columns like Kubon's should dispel all doubt.
actually more of libel, but newspapers are generally exempt as it's hard to prove malice on their part.
Libel per se if I remember my common law. But the common law of defamation has been eviscerated by the US Supreme Court.
JeffM
Libel. Slander is for verbal comments.
As disgusted as I am that people like Kubon( Lubiano and Holloway) use an academic podium to spew slanderous "opinions" without even a nod toward truth, there is a part of me that feels sympathetic toward those poor souls whose lives are so devoid of reality, so blatantly narrow in regard to the human experience and powered by fear and hatred. How terribly sad and lonely are such individuals.
Why am I not surprised?
Unquestionably, you have done more to advance the cause of the falsely accused in recent times than anyone. I run a blog that gives voice to the men and women harmed by wrongful sex claims. Last month we had in excess of 164,000 unique visitors -- small compared to the numbers DIW was accustomed to getting, I am sure, but we do have a loyal following. We receive notes from women who've been raped and who fully support our efforts because -- mirabile dictu! -- they know that every rape lie diminishes the integrity of every legitimate claim.
But in stark and breathtaking contrast to those writers, we also receive hate mail from self-described feminists who have no interest in discussing facts but are content to branding us misogynists (nothing could be further from the truth). Two have wished me to be brutally raped.
My sincere belief -- and I say this without execessive fear of contradiction -- is that until you blew the lid off Duke lacrosse, people such as the woman you reference were able to spin their narrative without rebuttal and without bothering with silly things like facts and truth and rationality.
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." What we are witnessing is a mass and collective conniption from true believer ideologues who can't stand the fact that someone is able to plausibly contradict them.
Here is a potential response. http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=173964&catid=3
Law School 72
It doesn't come as a surprise to me that Ms Kubon hails from the U of Michigan. Let me relate my experience as it may shed light on the state of higher education there. I come from an historic New England family. What is different is my family for whatever reason compiled and saved thousands of primary documents dating from the early 18th cent to post WWII. I'm talking about a literal truckload. When the family home in Vt was sold out of the family my mother - a librarian- took custody of the records and began to read them page by page. At that time the Uof M had a pretty extensive collection on New England families in general and particularly some of my forebearers. My mother sent about a 6' shelf worth to them and at the time Uof M wanted the whole collection. My mother would not release anything she hadnt read and refused when Uof M wanted to send a prof and grad students east to go thru the collection. After my mother became too frail to live alone we emptied the house and I began looking for a home for the collection. In the process I contacted UofM to see if they were still interested. They replied that they were interested but only in those documents which pertained to the WOMYN. So when a lad writes home to his mother after fighting at Saratoga they want Mom's reply but not his letter? This apparently is what passes for historical research at Michigan.
If Kubon is sued for Defamation, her Lawyers may well respond that their client’s offending statements are not actionable.
The complete sentence reads:“If you like the Duke Lacrosse Team because they are really good at running around, throwing balls to each other in little nets, and getting high after games, it might be hard to hear that they allgot inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.”
You can expect her lawyers to argue that it is true that it might be hard to hear that they all got inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.
They would argue that their client did not allege that they DID get inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.
They would assert that their client stated only that it would be hard to hear an allegation that they sexually assaulted a stripper, and that their client's remarks are entitled to be interpreted under an Innocent Construction Rule.
They would argue that innuendo is not actionable. When an innocent construction is logically available, that is the one that should be applied.
So a self-described “modern day feminist, struggling between the desire for social change and bitterness towards the depraved decadence of our backward culture." could thereby be ruled free to spitefully trash the Laxer’s reputations by innuendo.
The Kubons of this world are intransigent.
Interestingly, Ms. Kuhon now seems to be rejecting further comments that challenge her worldview about the Duke Lacrosse case, asserting that they are "inappropriate" for a site that is "an outlet, a resource center, a ventilator for frustration for the modern day feminist." In short, her mind's made up, don't confuse her with inconvenient facts that don't fit the narrative.
For the record, just in case any of the lacrosse players ever need it, the following was a comment I sent her this morning that was apparently rejected under her cocooning worldview:
Nicole, you may want to consult someone who is actually familiar with the law of defamation. You've gone far beyond the bounds of opinion and made a direct, public accusation that the members of the lacrosse team committed a heinous crime: that "they all got inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest."
Notwithstanding whatever urban myths you may be relying on, you don't get a free pass by just saying "well, that is just my opinion" -- particularly not where after being called on this, you've refused to retract your statement, and in fact are continuing to advanced it. If push came to shove, you'd have to prove with actual, admissible evidence that such a crime did occur . . . and given the evidence in this matter (as has been exhaustively detailed in the AG's report, transcripts of the Nifong disciplinary hearings, KC Johnson's blog and book, RB Parrish's book, etc.) your chances of doing so in a court of law are essentially zilch.
LKB
Whitewashing History
And we have yet another example of how to spin facts (or in this case, ignore them) to fit a narrative.
At a recent on-campus forum to discuss "campus culture," President Brodhead was asked about the Lacrosse hoax:
“'It was all based on a district attorney who, as we came to learn one year later, lied and lied and lied about the nature of the evidence that was there, precipitating all of the massive emotion at that time,' he said. 'Believe me, I would have loved to have made that situation stop in its tracks.'” (The Chronicle, 2-4-11)
Notice anything missing from that picture?
Duke Prof
Q.A.
However, in her response to one of the comments left, she states she believes that a sexual assault did take place. It is also my understanding she reiterates this position in e-mails to some who's comments did not make it up on the board.
I would not be the least bit interested in libel or slander charges for Nicole Kubon.
I want to know how she is linked to the Group of 88 and other groups who are trying to revise American history in general and this case in particular, with Gender, Privilege and Race as their focus for building their own social capital and careers.
There are many groups other than the Group of 88 trying to revise American history and they are all running an organized racket.
Professor Anderson is correct. Let the lawsuits and the discovery process begin.
::
GP
If you like the Women's Studies Program at Michgan because they are really good at making stuff up, throwing the phrase "rape culture" around, and getting high after poetry readings, it might be hard to hear that they recently reported a study showing that for every 100 female students on the Ann Arbor campus, 150 of them have been raped.
I will not retract the aforesaid even though it is untrue and mathematically unlikely. MOO! Gregory
Frankly, Kubon and those like her are pathetic. Without dissecting her words, I remain perplexed how such people are capable of functioning. However, her psychological framework {modern day feminist] reveals enough to understand her warped and demented view of life and society. Moreover, the Crystal Mangum affair is nothing more than an opportunity for this angry (perhaps abused) woman to vent her evil vexations upon a receptive audience of victims.
Nicole Kubon’s Experience according to her own LinkedIn listing:
Marinated in government funded wackiness...read how your tax dollars are being wasted.
Twenty-Something Relationships Columnist Examiner.com
Sexual Assault Advocate
Wayne County S.A.F.E.
(Mental Health Care industry)
March 2010 — Present (1 year )
Direct Services Intern
Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center
(Mental Health Care industry)
December 2008 — December 2009 (1 year 1 month)
Jumpstart Corp Member
Americorps
(Government Agency; Non-Profit Organization Management industry)
September 2008 — May 2009 (9 months)
Assistant Program Coordinator
Global REACH
(Educational Institution; Higher Education industry)
May 2007 — August 2008 (1 year 4 months)
Research Assistant
SURO
(Mental Health Care industry)
January 2007 — May 2007 (5 months)
Conducted Background Research on Asexuality and Bisexuality
Undergraduate Student Instructor
Women's Studies Department - University of Michigan
(Education Management industry)
January 2007 — May 2007 (5 months)
Group Facilitator for WS 100: Gendered Lives in the US
Nicole Kubon’s Education
University of Michigan
MSW , Interpersonal Practice, Mental Health , 2008 — 2009
Activities and Societies:
Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center (SAPAC), Sexual Health Educators, Spectrum Center
University of Michigan
Bachelor's Degree , Sociology, Women's Studies , 2004 — 2007
Activities and Societies:
Spectrum Center, Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center (SAPAC), Students for Choice
Additional Information
Did any of you read the entire article or did you just take one line out of it and pounce on it to further your own agenda's, whatever they may be. . .
The claim that members of the Duke LaCrosse team sexually assaulted Mangum strike me as being libelous. If I had been a member of the team, Kubon might very well find herself on the wrong end of a defamation lawsuit.
To the 12.52:
I'm not quite sure I understand the thrust of your question, but I did read the entire post.
Beyond that, Kuhon's words--both in the post and in subsequent e-mails--speak for themselves.
She was a research assistant? That's pretty scary.
I have only ever looked at the evidence in minute detail in one rape allegation and that was the Duke Lacrosse case. Of course, there was no evidence except evidence of innocence. That makes me wonder about all the other cases or instances that the blog author cites.
Do those cases have as many problems as the Duke Lacrosse case? Were the prosecutions and/or investigations politically motivated like the Duke Lacrosse case? The author wanted to score some cheap fempoints with her mention of the Duke Lacrosse matter, but she really just cheapened her own argument so that it's now impossible to believe anything she has to write.
The last conclusion, that it's now impossible to believe anything she has to write, is further strengthened by the author's tortoise-like refusal to listen to reason.
Thus, in the first instance, she used a known "X" along with a bunch of "Y's," calling them all "Y's." That ruins her credibility right there. Then, in the second instance, she refuses to acknowledge her error and makes up obvious lies to back up her story (i.e. I studied the facts of the Duke case or some such nonsense).
All she has done is raise red flags in my mind about the prosecutions or investigations in the other cases that she cites. Very stupid thing to do.
I wouldn't really worry too much about Kubon or people like her. They shoot themselves in the foot immediately by bringing such "facts".
What I do find amusing is how all the comments following it thank her for bring this to light. Bringing what to light, the fact that athletes are universally accused of impropriety and that certain people immediately believe it despite massive evidence to the contrary?
KC, Pierce, keep up the good work.
What a joke you are, President Broadhead. To now claim that it took you one year( twelve months)to realize that District Attorney Nifong "lied and lied and lied"is to, essentially, admit that you are so incredibly "slow" and are unable to think for yourself. Any of the brilliant Duke students You attempted to fool by this foolish assertion ans all of us who will no longer contribute to Duke, because of your incompetent leadership,can quickly pull up a timeline of events to demonstrate that the world recognized Nifong's lies months before you claim you did. You are such a joke.
http://schadenfreudeanslip.blogspot.com/2011/02/case-study-of-patriarchy-academic.html
A deconstruction on everything in this entire argument.
I read the entire article. I am even a bit sympathetic with Kuhon's frustration at excessive privilige for athletes. However, her writing is juvenile, her reasoning is tangled, her determination that all rape allegations are true is just whacked out. Her response to criticsm of her unwarranted attacks on the Lacrosse Players belies an extreme emotional immaturity.
Q.A., I think you misinterpret the Innocent Construction Rule.
"Innocent construction rule refers to a principle that an allegedly libelous statement will be given an innocuous or harmless interpretation if the statement is either ambiguous or harmless. Courts must interpret the words "as they appeared to have been used and according to the idea they intended to convey to the reasonable reader." The rule does not require courts to strain to find an unnatural innocent meaning for a statement when a defamatory meaning is far more reasonable.
When a defamatory meaning was clearly intended and conveyed, courts should not strain to interpret allegedly defamatory words in their mildest and most inoffensive sense in order to hold them nonlibellous under the innocent construction rule. [Giant Screen Sports v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 553 F.3d 527, 533 (7th Cir. Ill. 2009)]
This rule requires courts to consider a written or oral statement in context, giving the words, and their implications, their natural and obvious meaning. If a statement may reasonably be interpreted innocently, it cannot be actionable per se. [Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., 381 F.3d 717, 726-727 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004)]"
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/innocent-construction-rule/
There are real issues for actual feminists to tackle; why any self-styled feminist would want to claim that an assault happened is beyond me.
OT
Did anyone follow the reaction of the press outside of the US to the DL case? I recall that Judge Kenneth Titus mentioned it in his gag order.
I hope the Duke lacrosse players do file suit against Kubon for defamation. People who tell lies about other people should be called to account for it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566201554448476.html
Interesting case with the similarity that the DA admits no wrongdoing. The former convict is suing the city and state for $60 million.
KC and Wonderland readers, I think you will appreciate this article from the The Chronicle:
Admin confident in resilience of the Duke brand
Seems to me that as the 5th anniversary of the infamous lacrosse rape hoax approaches, the shameful choices of the Duke 88 and Brodhead administration continue to be the proverbial elephant in the room.
*AIG RESOLVES DUKE UNIVERSITY'S 2008 LACROSSE-STRIPPER LAWSUIT
Post a Comment