tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post3280004325292649805..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Updateskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-84123782450252247142007-10-15T13:37:00.000-04:002007-10-15T13:37:00.000-04:00No, 5:54 is speaking the truth. And KC will, of c...No, 5:54 is speaking the truth. And KC will, of course, ignore it. I think he likes to twist people's words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46490492921860345742007-10-12T21:58:00.000-04:002007-10-12T21:58:00.000-04:00Lawyers - Pro Bono - Lets not get carried away.Lawyers - Pro Bono - Lets not get carried away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87218213868857561812007-10-12T16:36:00.000-04:002007-10-12T16:36:00.000-04:00Haynie is just another surfer on the tidal wave o...Haynie is just another surfer on the tidal wave of racial victim agitprop. He has no concern for the truth, probably wouldn't recognize it if he saw it. He has contempt for things as banal as truth and justice. No, this is an-ends-justify-the-means, by-any-means-necessary, race-baiter and professional victim. Within our sickened academy he knows he's safe from criticism of even the mildest sort. His anger directed at KC is the anger of one forced to face the criticisms of people over whom he has no coercive power. I look forward to his "forthcoming" book.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257658497378543379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35152198842173784612007-10-12T16:14:00.000-04:002007-10-12T16:14:00.000-04:00Dear KC,It’s Friday afternoon, and I appreciate th...Dear KC,<BR/><BR/>It’s Friday afternoon, and I appreciate the unintended humor I saw in your comments section today. I thought the threat of a Duke lawsuit against you was a particularly nice new strategy! BUT you realize you can only blame yourself for having brought this new offensive on by, if I may use a football analogy, running a “fake punt” and gaining a first down.<BR/><BR/>Look at it from their perspective for a moment; they thought they were through with you. Oct 1st was here! As the most visible and effective critic of the Duke G88 disaster, having you gone would allow the “healing to begin”. D@mn KC, you keep pulling off the scab and revealing the underlying infection! How’s a good infection ever to get a foothold?.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I am thrilled with their offensive. I am hoping it will make you mad enough to keep writing. And if you need free legal help, I will bet there are enough lawyers who regularly read and enjoy your blog who would contribute pro bono to your defense (and enjoy every minute of it)!<BR/><BR/>Not the mayorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82836083446556491342007-10-12T15:56:00.000-04:002007-10-12T15:56:00.000-04:00Is 5:54 a Communist?No, but 5/1 is.Is 5:54 a Communist?<BR/><BR/>No, but 5/1 is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86417367394633014422007-10-12T12:10:00.000-04:002007-10-12T12:10:00.000-04:00Is 5:54 a Communist?Is 5:54 a Communist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38648957861222474032007-10-12T10:32:00.000-04:002007-10-12T10:32:00.000-04:00ralph phelan is certainly right that DIW has drawn...ralph phelan is certainly right that DIW has drawn political responses. To the extent those responses are personal attacks and other unfounded allegations, which so often work in political campaigns, I don't think they will work, ie be at all persuasive, to the thousands of people from around the world who read DIW. While 5:54's long post with cites was very useful, it is the exception. Why all the heated political responses? They remind me of the ironically named Listening Statement, two words that normally asked to claim the reader's attention simultaneously.<BR/><BR/>The strained use - to be polite about it - of forthcomong leaves one with no choice but to scratch one's head and wonder why. But In the grand scheme of things it isn't very important to the world beyond Duke. Maybe academic freedom at Duke is a particulary individual matter.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that a few Duke professors are very angry and feel they have been personally attacked. Rather than participate in the discussion and respond on the merits, it seems they have become defensive and retreated. Maybe their choice would be understandble if am explanation were offered.<BR/><BR/>There are some things at Duke that need to be sorted out. I hope there is a moritorium. I hope the professors and their annonymous supporters stop criticizing KC and Stuart and stop making public statements about the lacrosse case which in any event should be renamed the Nifong case. By the same token I hope DIW, which is drawing to a close, will focus on the most unfortunate lawsuit against Durham. By unfortunate i only mean that is unforunate a lawsuit is necessary. The defendants with power to fix the gruesome deformities exposed by the Duke case should publically announce their willingness to do so. The plaintiffs should announce their preference for not punishing the innocent taxpayers of Durham. (It's quite easy to be an armchair quarterback while sitting in a coffee shop in North Haven, CT!)<BR/><BR/>Thanks again to KC and to the others who contributed to DIW.W. R. Chambershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10827973470339715021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-72645197968120399852007-10-12T09:44:00.000-04:002007-10-12T09:44:00.000-04:00Different people may draw different conclusions ba...Different people may draw different conclusions based on the same fact pattern.<BR/><BR/>I subscribe to the school that the Coleman report was a stunning vindication ....given the context and atmosphere. I think it is fair to say that most unbiased readers would have the same conclusion. <BR/><BR/>If Coleman's conclusion was at odds with the fact pattern he presented he had his chance he state that at the time of the report. Though most writers like to think their prose is so convincing that readers will draw the obvious conclusion. <BR/><BR/>What he's attempting now is called revisionist history. At best. <BR/><BR/>His anti-evidence statement reminds me of a juror who I sat with during a drug trial. There was overwhelming evidence provided by the state: clear and convincing video, physical evidence, testimony, money trail...it was all there. The defense presented alternative theories as to how the drug money ended up in the house, that the witnesses weren't reliable, etc. 11 of us read it the same way. One lady on the jury saw the same evidence but was UNABLE to draw a rational conclusion because she liked the guy. "He couldn't do that to his mama," was her reason for dismissing the evidence. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, Coleman is under some pressure to "turn." Given his posiition one would hope he had greater courage. More feckless "leaders" are not needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66914050979519834722007-10-12T09:20:00.000-04:002007-10-12T09:20:00.000-04:005:54,I agree there is a difference between words a...5:54,<BR/><BR/>I agree there is a difference between words and intent. The G88's intentions were clear from the get go. The G88 back-tracked only when they were called on the carpet. The 88 then claimed their statement had not to do with "the Lacrosse Incident" but with broader issues. Yet Waahhneeema's spam e-mail specifically targeted the Lacrosse Incident as the statement's response. <BR/><BR/>Worse, you claim the G88 have been holed into a non-respnse mode. Do you expect anyone to believe that? A more plausible theory would be that their attornies have told them not to speak out. <BR/><BR/>The G88 banked on their malicious intent that something happened and offered a dialogue until the facts became too much of a reality for them to deal with. Now, they cry foul because they havn't a leg to stand on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71011554979742296972007-10-12T08:37:00.000-04:002007-10-12T08:37:00.000-04:00W. R. Chambers said... "This blog is not like a po...W. R. Chambers said... <BR/>"This blog is not like a political campaign."<BR/><BR/>The entire Duke Lacrosse Burning has been a group of intersecting political campaigns, from Nifong's releection at the smallest scale to Gramsci's plan for an incrememntal socialist revolution at the broadest.<BR/><BR/>KC's documentation of the politics as they unfold is a scholarly act, but to the extent it affects that unfolding it is also a political one, and so will inevitably draw a political response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13467874389134358062007-10-12T08:29:00.000-04:002007-10-12T08:29:00.000-04:00Anonymous 10/11/07 5:57 PMsaid... The alcohol issu...Anonymous 10/11/07 5:57 PM<BR/>said... <BR/><I>The alcohol issue can not be put aside.</I><BR/><BR/>But it must be put in context.<BR/><BR/>As I say above, "Nice guys with a drinking problem" was a <B>relative</B> vindication, and for practical purposes a huge one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23326157304247125422007-10-12T08:26:00.000-04:002007-10-12T08:26:00.000-04:00Debrah said:"Without some really dedicated people ...Debrah said:<BR/><BR/>"Without some really dedicated people like KC who constantly illuminate this deliberate second chapter of the Hoax--the one inside Duke University--it will be just another day on the road to the complete destruction of academic standards."<BR/><BR/>As I've commented elsewhere, I find it interesting that a lot of the good sense and energy for reform is coming from faculty at non-"elite" schools.<BR/><BR/>I could speculate that the blind application of funding and organizational models that worked well for top-rank science departments to the liberal arts is part of what created the groundwork for the current mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46798066102264978962007-10-12T08:15:00.000-04:002007-10-12T08:15:00.000-04:00TexasMom said"If you've never been in a fencing ve...TexasMom said<BR/><BR/>"If you've never been in a fencing venue when a saber team enters the premises, you've never REALLY seen testosterone in action!"<BR/><BR/>Don't tell us, tell Paul Haagen. He's the one we're mocking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39936079926613267402007-10-12T07:28:00.000-04:002007-10-12T07:28:00.000-04:00Traveler at 3:12 makes the excellent point that th...Traveler at 3:12 makes the excellent point that the Coleman committee was on a witch hunt from the start. His post bears reading again.<BR/><BR/>"1. The Charge to the Committee<BR/>On April 5, 2006, you jointly charged the Ad Hoc Committee as follows:<BR/>[T]o look into the behavior of members of the lacrosse team over the past five years, and specifically the record of both charges of inappropriate social conduct and criminal violations and of official Duke, community and team responses to that conduct and those violations."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-18879320474196625092007-10-12T04:22:00.000-04:002007-10-12T04:22:00.000-04:00It has come to my attention that Robert Thompson h...It has come to my attention that Robert Thompson has resigned as Dean of the Trinity School of the Arts and Sciences. He was also the Chair of the failed CCI initiative.<BR/><BR/>The times are a changin'.<BR/><BR/>It will be quite interesting to see who replaces him. <BR/><BR/>Will they hire somone who has published more than a rock? Read by someone outside ones immediate family.<BR/><BR/>It would also be instructive to fully understand his influence on the hiring of the existing faculty. <BR/><BR/>He's been in charge for over ten years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66580473056981894022007-10-12T02:58:00.000-04:002007-10-12T02:58:00.000-04:00Nifong is gone, the players have been declared inn...Nifong is gone, the players have been declared innocent, Durham will pay, Duke has already paid handsomely, and Brodhead has finally apologized (not at all handsomely)...so bravo. <BR/><BR/>This blog has been great, although not perfect. KC, you insisted on the facts, even if your language was ever a tad understated for my tastes. You knew how to keep this ugly saga straight no matter who tried to tangle and deny and obfuscate. You reminded readers again and again what had been said and done, and what had not been said and done; you held person after person to account, hardly ever faltering...and even if you did (as I think)expect too little of Brodhead and too much of Coleman, still - Bravo!<BR/><BR/>One mark of how successful you were is how truly desperate your detractors sound. Still, that any of them can even attempt to defend the actions of the 88 is a wonder, and a true testimony to human stubbornness. <BR/><BR/>While you are away in Israel they will be furiously rebuilding the parapets of Castle Metanarrative, and word may come of a dark study or two, perhaps even a wondrous book, that explains you and blogs like this as the most dire threats to scholarly independence the world has ever seen: possibly almost as big a threat as Yao Ming is to American Empire. The sad thing is we won't get a chance to read any of it, for it will be perpetually forthcoming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11553741610183931592007-10-12T00:45:00.000-04:002007-10-12T00:45:00.000-04:00To me, the results of the Coleman Report are a cla...To me, the results of the Coleman Report are a classic demonstration of <I>"Perception</I> versus <I>Reality"</I>.<BR/><BR/>In the late 80's, "Rolling Stone" magazine created a brilliant ad with that very title. It was directed at corporate ad buyers and a friend of mine who was then an ad buyer for a major US corporation sent it to me.<BR/><BR/>RS was trying to show the <B>reality</B> of their readership in order to attract a wider market for their advertising. Several photographs were shown side-by-side, one listed under "Perception" showed a 60s hippie couple beside a VW bus. Next to it, listed under "Reality" was a well-dressed yuppie couple standing next to a BMW together with a statement of the average age, income, and occupational data of Rolling Stone readers, based on objective independant market survey data.<BR/><BR/>In the Duke case, much of what was written and spoken about the "jock culture," male groups, athletic teams, etc. etc. etc. was based on <B>perceptions</B> accepted as truth by a lot of folks who have never played a sport or been on an athletic team in their lives.<BR/><BR/>Even in the midst of all of these perceptions and vile comments being directed at the lacrosse players, the Coleman Committee's charge was based on perceptions including "inappropriate social conduct and criminal violations"; classroom behaviors;... and [to]take into consideration information from members of the Duke community or from any other knowledgeable source about the conduct of [the lacrosse team] or respect for others ..."<BR/><BR/>The <B>reality</B> of the lacrosse team's "behavior" represented, by any measure, a stunning vindication of the team and the Coleman Committee members damn well know that.<BR/><BR/>Reality is of no interest to the Group of 88 idealogues who foisted their perceptions upon a willing community, media, and university administration who acted like lemmings --- "spring loaded" to accept those perceptions and dive off the cliff behind the 88.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to guess that "Reality TV," one of the great oxymorons of our time, is popular with the 88. While they corkscrew their "bodies" in profound angst at poor, suffering people wallowing in strife and starvation while stranded on a desert island, the 88 forget that just five feet away from the actors are overweight camera and sound boom operators munching on giant ham and beef sandwiches drooling mayonaise on their chins ...<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-45559660481723498902007-10-11T23:15:00.000-04:002007-10-11T23:15:00.000-04:00Why is that almost all criticisms of KC and Stuart...Why is that almost all criticisms of KC and Stuart contain no evidence to support the writer's conclusions, have an angry tone and are annonymous? <BR/><BR/>For more than 480 days KC has put his name and reputation on the line every day. He and the process he started deserve to be treated with respect. Annonymous ad hominen attacks reflect badly on those who make them and prevent any meaningful exchange of ideas. There is no shortage of people willing to listen reasoned argument, but there isn't much of an audience for personal attacks. This blog is not like a political campaign.W. R. Chambershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10827973470339715021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74407660414352418472007-10-11T22:36:00.000-04:002007-10-11T22:36:00.000-04:00Any person offering an "apology" using the words "...Any person offering an "apology" using the words "if" or "may" shows little remorse or knowledge of the actual harm done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77376581649450621622007-10-11T21:25:00.000-04:002007-10-11T21:25:00.000-04:00Boil this case down to its essence. The lacrosse ...Boil this case down to its essence. The lacrosse hoax persisted because Nifong had the support of uninformed and illogical people. <BR/><BR/>Some were in academia, many at Duke. Safe in their perches, they made pronouncements, hastily and in error.<BR/><BR/>Other people chose to defend Nifong on the internet. They got their rumps kicked as the case wore on. Some were very clever people, but their biases were their undoing.<BR/><BR/>Here's the sad part: those biased, clever people generally put up stronger arguments - and were better competition - than the Duke faculty members who have gone on the public record. They also were more informed, often with their evidence organized in meticulous record-keeping databases. <BR/><BR/>That unhappy conclusion is that Duke University shelters and pays many staffers who would be slaughtered in online debate. They are sloppy, unprepared, and offer weak arguments or non-sequitors. Those few bold enough to dabble on the lacrosse blogs or sites are clearly outclassed. Used to being revered and unchallenged in a groupthink cloister has left them evolutionarily unprepared for modern discussion ways -- or just debate itself. And it shows. <BR/><BR/>Watching KC deliver his counterpunches makes the unkind in me laugh; it causes the humanitarian in me holler for the ref to stop the fight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66247603698979792172007-10-11T20:39:00.000-04:002007-10-11T20:39:00.000-04:005:54 ... I read and then re-read your argument but...5:54 ... I read and then re-read your argument but I remain unconvinced. Since you recognize Nifong's guilt and then claim Johnson has a "bloodlust against the faculty" you appear to have a biased opinion based on a personal interest.<BR/><BR/>Equating K C to Nancy Grace is simply outrageous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-91637873368329755452007-10-11T20:35:00.000-04:002007-10-11T20:35:00.000-04:00TO 4:24 anonymous Duke Grad. I like your comments ...TO 4:24 anonymous Duke Grad. I like your comments and documentation. Any chance you have the time to set up a blog and continue this along for another year or so? I am in KC D-I-W withdrawal already. <BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/>"5:54" writes "By the way, I am pretty sure that more of the 88 would have apologized for the pain the ad caused the players if it weren't for KC."<BR/><BR/>The Gang of 88 apologize? When Houstan Baker's "farm animals" fly maybe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41992232495634002072007-10-11T20:19:00.000-04:002007-10-11T20:19:00.000-04:00Some, who are so totally jealous of KC, have tried...Some, who are so totally jealous of KC, have tried to portray KC in a negative light. Who in their right mind can argue that KC spins things to make his own argument? Proof required for such rash statements.<BR/><BR/>Moveon.Duke. Love it. How apropos for such a left leaning institution. Their new cheer:<BR/>Lean to the left<BR/>Not to the right<BR/>Bang those pots<BR/>And castrate the right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37710874043177178802007-10-11T18:35:00.000-04:002007-10-11T18:35:00.000-04:00To 5:54,May I point out that no one responded to P...To 5:54,<BR/><BR/>May I point out that no one responded to President Brodhead's apology more graciously than KC Johnson. <BR/><BR/>Prof. Coleman's harsh letter to the Chronicle at this late date was odd, and KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor needed to make that point. The number of times Prof. Coleman could have objected and did not and his cordial relations with Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson up until that letter are important facts that contribute to a better understanding the situation. <BR/><BR/>ObserverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39665216047664987262007-10-11T18:15:00.000-04:002007-10-11T18:15:00.000-04:00It appears to me that Professor Coleman saw a need...It appears to me that Professor Coleman saw a need to strengthen his PC cred for important political or cocktail party reasons. This comes from a man who showed great strength in the early portion of the Hoax. How unfortunate.<BR/><BR/>Is it a not-well-thought-out attack to support his main thesis that the Gang of 88 are really swell folk? That's what I think it is, even though it does not really support his main thesis. <BR/><BR/>Coleman's apparent argument looks like this: <BR/><BR/>1. K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor were wrong in calling the Coleman Committee a "stunning vindication" of the students. <BR/><BR/>2. Therefore, Johnson and Taylor must also be wrong about how bad the Gang of 88 were.<BR/><BR/>As you can see, it is the slimmest of arguments. That is especially true since, taken in the context of those horrible first couple months of the Hoax, the Coleman Committee report WAS a "stunning vindication" of the boys compared to the nasty things everyone else was saying, including, but not limited to: Nancy Grace, Samiha Khanna, Ruth Sheehan, Wendy Murphy, NCCU students, the Herald-Sun, potbangers and some Duke faculty.<BR/><BR/>It was a not-well-thought-out attack because a well-thought-out attack would be seamless and consistent. As can be seen above and on the Duke Chronicle blog site, Professor Coleman only came up with the argument when he saw the need to attack Taylor and Johnson. <BR/><BR/>Making the argument this late, months after it may have had any legitimacy or relevance just shows how little ammunition Coleman has to rebut the proof that the Gang of 88 were heinous actors in this Hoax. <BR/>_________________<BR/><BR/>The worst part of the attack is the disingenuous way in which it attempts to bash the players. By claiming their report was not a "stunning vindication" of the boys, Coleman and his no-name co-author are, in an underhanded way, saying the boys were worse than other college students in some nebulous way. How sad that these learned people have to resort to bashing innocent and much-maligned students to make their political (or is it cocktail party) points. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com