KC Johnson Strike again!!

As usual KC Johnson was doone it again!! He has posted 10 questions for the Group of 88/87 professors who have released a "Clarifiing Statement" who claim their original "Listening Statement has been so widely misinterpretated."

Here are KC original 10 questions for the Group of 88/87

1.) In your new statement, you decried an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.” What statistical evidence do you have to substantiate that assertion?

2.) Given your claim that Duke has an atmosphere that allows “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke? If so, how could you support their entering an environment that you have publicly described as so dangerous?

3.) To what specific acts/cases of “racism and sexual violence” that occurred on the Duke campus before the lacrosse team incident does your statement refer? Could you spell out what individual or collective action you took in those cases?

4.) In your statement, you wrote, “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time.” Could you say which demonstrations you did not support, and why you did not support them? Why did you not spell this matter out in your statement?

5.) Do you agree with the late March assertion of your colleague and fellow signatory, Bill Chafe, that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided an appropriate historical context through which to interpret the actions of the lacrosse players?

6.) Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Wahneema Lubiano, who told the N&O that “people can’t imagine that the woman could have made a false rape allegation”?

7.) Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that the lacrosse case could only be “assessed through a metric of race and gender. White innocence means black guilt”? And do you think Professor Holloway acted properly when she passed on fifth-hand unsubstantiated gossip about Duke students--gossip that appeared in the press, coincidentally, just hours before your "clarifying" statement saw the light of day?

8.) In your statement, you wrote, “The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape.” Since the ad discussed “what happened to this young woman” and contained several quotes from alleged Duke students discussing the alleged rape, did the ad’s primary author, Professor Lubiano, misinterpret your sentiments in the language she used and the quotations she selected?

9.) In your statement, you wrote, “We think the ad’s authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real.” Could you spell out what individual or collective action you took in the cases of other Duke students “whose suffering is real”—such as, for example, Duke lacrosse players who were harassed on campus last spring, or Duke students whose voter registration effort outside the football stadium was improperly shut down this fall? Is the “suffering” of some Duke students more important to you than that of others?

10.) Do you believe that Mike Nifong acted properly when he went to the grand jury on April 17 to seek indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty?

Here are 25 additional questions from the comment section:

1.) Does race and class require automatic judgements or are we to be judged as individuals?

2.) Do you believe the initial statement has caused harm to Duke?

3.) Will you document the methodology used to obtain a representative cross section of campus opinion for the listening statement?

4.) If you believe that exculpatory DNA results should have had no impact on how professors viewed the lacrosse case, what is your attitude toward the release from prison of numerous Black inmates based on similar results (Project Innocence)?

5.) With respect to the Listening Ad quotation that “I can’t help but think about the different attention given to what has happened from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that’s not so upscale,” what impact do you think the January 2006 Virginia Union University/University of Richmond rape case, detailed here, has on that view?

6.) You have just been transported back to April 2006, and you have been handed the original Group of 88 statement in draft form, with a chance to revise it so that it will avoid generating accusations of prejudgment or other misperceptions. Please re-issue the statement in its entirety, reflecting all such revisions.

7.) Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Econ Professors, that all students, including lacrosse players and other student athletes are welcome in your classes?

8.) Do you agree with John Kenneth Galbraith's opinion that "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof"?

9.) The lacrosse case revealed the students and paying parents have a significant lack of protection of their interests as both customers and new members of the Duke community. News that Duke supported police singling out Duke students for arrests they would not make on Durham residents. News of alleged grade retaliation on accused students or other forms of in-class harassment. News that one prominent professor, Houston Baker, demanded summary expulsion from school based on group membership. In response to such problems, do you favor a stronger student union and council, so that the student body may be better able to defend itself?

10.) If you, as educators, wrote a statement which was as you claim misunderstood by every person who read it, does this fact not pose significant questions as to your competence in guiding young minds? Have a similar proportion of your students left your classes also totally misunderstanding what you taught them?

11.) Do you believe that professors have an obligation to speak out on behalf of due process, as defined by the Constitution and subsequent jurisprudence, when you see due process rights publicly abridged?

12.) Are there certain groups or individuals who stand accused of crime against whom it is appropriate to lend your voice in heightening public condemnation?

13.) In your statement, you contended that sexual violence is “prevalent” on the Duke campus. Are you familiar with the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of the word PREVALENT as “most extensively used or practiced; generally accepted; of frequent occurrence; extensively existing; in general use”?

14.) Could you spell out what individual or collective action you have undertaken since issuing the first statement to rectify the sexist and racist culture on campus, other than issusing another statement?

15.) Since you are college professors and some teach English, are you embarrassed that your first statement was so widely misinterpreted?

16.) Regarding one of the anonymous statements from an alleged Duke student in your first ad, have any of you approached the Duke police force to ask if they have a policy of slowing down when they see a Black man on campus? Have any of you experienced or observed this phenomenon?

17.) Does the racist culture on the Duke campus extend to religious views? For example, are Muslims, Jews, or other religious groups treated unfairly?

18.) Many of you have been at Duke for many years; some of you have been or are in positions of administrative authority. When did you first notice the sexist and racist culture on campus, and what actions did you take to remedy it?

19.) In your original statement, you explicitly thanked people for not waiting. The fundamental question is what was not worthy of being awaited. Time for reason to assist emotion? Time for evidence to be gathered and assessed? Time for a defense to be made? If you were so attuned to due process, why did you fail to mention it in your April 6 statement?

20.) In addition to Cathy Davidson, who and how many of the ad's signatories have been advised by legal counsel of the potential civil liability they each face for the publication of the Ad based on the content that they pretend has been misread?

21.) If you believe this alleged white on black rape is symptomatic of a larger culture of racism and sexual violence on campus, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the vast majority of interracial rapes involving whites and blacks are black on white?

22.) In your statement you claim to "stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence." What then did you expect readers of the ad to infer from your reference to "what happened to this young woman"? Given that she had accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape, isn't that the obvious inference, carrying with it implied guilt of some members of the lacrosse team?

23.) Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that "sports reinforces exactly those behaviors of entitlement which have been and can be so abusive to women and girls and those 'othered' by their sports' history of membership"? Please state your view of the relative threat of abuse toward women posed by team sports compared with the threat posed by rap music.

24.) Have you ever taught any of the 46 lacrosse players who were targeted by Mike Nifong? Did their behavior in your class conform to the stereotype that Nifong and the media offered last spring? If not, why did you not speak out publicly to set the record straight about their character; or just to demand that the be treated according to the same procedures accorded to all other Durham residents, and spelled out by the ethics canons of the North Carolina State Bar?

25.) Your recent statement makes no reference whatsoever to departments or programs at Duke University. Department affiliations of the signers of this statement are not even given. This is in striking contrast to the original ad/listening statement specifically listing 15 Duke University Departments and programs that had signed on. Why are there no departments or programs signing onto this statement? Has the original ad, with its apparent sanction by 15 Duke departments and programs, possibly implicated the university in making prejudicial statement against defendants -- who are incidentally its own students?

Simply explaination for the Behavior of the Duke Faculty

The behavior of the faculty at Duke has been, for the most part, appalling. The Original "Listening" Statement by the Group of 88, the defense of the statement by Karla Holloway, Vice Provost Cathy Davidson, and the new "Statement" by the Group of 87 has been for the most part dismissively written off, or simply explained as "Political Corectness" gone amok. Many conservative opinion writers and bloggers have blasted the behavior of the overwhelming liberal bias/mindset of academia. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group has boiled everything down to an accurate description of everything that is wrong with the liberal arts and sciences group at almost every university:

Between a perverse form of liberation feminism that sanctifies strippers, prostitutes and porn stars -- and a dogma of victimology that places blame for all things at the feet of the white patriarchy -- the players were instantaneously presumed guilty by virtue of their being white males and privileged jocks.

By the same reasoning, the dancer was assured victimhood by her status as a black single mother/student, reduced by centuries of white-male oppression to stripping for food and tuition.

I don't think anything more needs to be said other that the adoption of the Academic Bill of Rights by all Universities as well as the adoption of an affirmative action program to hire less qualified, intellectually inferior, and certainly discriminated conservative professors in and attempt at diversity, as espoused by the same liberal professors for minority and disadvantaged prospective college students.

Concerned (of Being Sued) Duke Faculty release another "Statement"

A newly formed group of Professors at Duke have released a new "Statement" defending their previous "Listening Statement." More than 2 dozen original signatories of the "Listening Statement" declined to sign the new statement, so new professors were recruited to a new total of 87. Within the new "Statement," the re-formed faculty group, "Concerned Duke Faculty" link to a cached copy of the original "Listening Statement". The "statement" was original posted on the African & African American Studies Department website, but was suddenly removed without explanation after strong criticism . One notable Professor who did not sign the new "statement" was Vice Provost Cathy Davidson.... I wonder why, since she release an article two weeks ago defending her signing her name to the first statement?

As usual, KC Johnson has done a masterful 2 part analysis of the new statement. La Shawn Barber also takes several shots at the new statement. Her description of the original statement is on the mark:

The silly ad, a bunch of disparate statements uttered by anonymous, victim-minded black students, was a gratuitous, irrelevant, inflammatory piece of trash meant to inflame already high racial tensions and cast Duke’s lacrosse-playing white boys as predatory, drunken brutes who routinely brutalize black women…and look at big black men funny. (h/t: KC Johnson)

They new group of Professors remind us that the original statement was a call to arms about the rampant racism and a bit of sexism that permeate the atmosphere at Duke. I have a simple question for the faculty, if racism and sexism has been such a problem, why haven't they said anything before? Why has there not been a series of article, lectures, speeches, and workshops to address the problem? Philosophy Professor Alex Rosenberg claims to have signed the first statement over the abuse of alcohol by student on campus, but neither statement mentions any alcohol related problems which needs to be addressed. So much for being on point.

60 Minutes - Duke Rape Hoax, Part 2

I watched the second 60 Minutes piece about the Nifong Hoax Scandal in which Leslie Stahl was interviewing the head of the DNA lab hired by Nifong and the parents of the Duke 3. WOW!!!

It was obvious that Dr. Brian Meehan was advised by lawyers to very carefully answer the question put forth by 60 Minutes and he was in FULL Damage Control Mode. His answers were very precise and was an attempt to limit the lab's lawsuit liability by the players. He is also very worried about the lab's de-certification.

The parents segment of the show was dramatic. Their anger at Nifong was so palpable. Their anger toward Duke University for abandoning their kids was almost the same vitriol they feel toward the DA. Watching President Broadhead stammer around trying to explain Duke's actions to the accusations/scandal was pathetic. He tried to put a good face on the damage to the University. Wait until the lawsuit fly about the behavior of the Professors in class, in grading, and in their outside activities.

Two quotes keep repeating in my mind, Mrs. Seligmann's said, "Every mother of a son in this country should be scared to death, that this was so easy to perpetrate, all that is .... that it's based on is a woman's word, and she change the story 7, 8, 9 times." My favorite was Rae Evans, "Mr Nifong, you picked on the wrong families, you picked on the wrong families that you indicted, you picked on the wrong family of the Duke Lacrosse team, you picked on the wrong family of Duke University, and you will pay everyday for the rest of your life."

Another reaction shows me how the Drive-By Media has no clue about the modern reality of the Internet. The parents spoke about the fact that the case may end shortly, but it will never go away. They mentioned googling the names of the Duke 3 and the huge number of articles that will float around in cyberspace forever and the reporter, Leslie Stahl was shocked by that fact. Either she is totally clueless about the internet or was faking it. Either way, she was not credible.

California Democrats shows liberal hypocricy again.

Sen, Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California (Marin County) challenged Secretary of State Condi Rice Iraq policy the other day by saying, "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family." So, since Sec. Rice is a childless professional woman, she is not qualified to develop foreign policy with the President of the United States.

Let's compare Sec. Rice's educations and experience vs. Sen. Boxer. Rice has a Masters and Ph.D. in Political Science, a Full Professor at Stanford in Poly Sci, the youngest Provost in Stanford's history, and was a Senior Fellow for the Institute of International Studies. Sen. Boxer has a degree in Economics. I'll vote for....Dr. Rice.

As for the other Democrat hypocrisy, Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed for a minimum wage hike bill, but exempted, American Samoa. Starkist Tuna has a plant on Samoa that employs 75% of the island's work force and is based in...San Fransisco, Nancy Pelosi's home district. HHHHHHHMMMM???!?!?!?!? Could she be helping a special interest group in her district? That can't be since she is going to run the most ethical and open House or Representatives ever, just like Bill Clinton was going to be the most ethical administration ever.....

E-mail exchange between Patricia Dowd and Karla Holloway

The Raleigh News & Observers has printed an e-mail from Patricia Dowd, a parents of a Jim Dowd, Duke Lacrosse players to Professor Karla FC Holloway. He barely graduated in June 2006 after Professor Kim Curtis is failed him in retaliation for being involved with or part of the cover-up of the scandal. The Dowd's have filed a lawsuit against Duke and the Professor for the retaliation.

Both Professor Karla FC Holloway and Professor Kim Curtis are signatories of the Group of 88 listening statement.

The entire e-mail has been posted below

November 6, 2006

Prof. Holloway,

I am the mother of a Duke Lacrosse player. After reading your article in September, I penned a response. I held off sending it, to see if my thoughts would change as my anger subsided. Unfortunately, my anger has not subsided. I do not want to prejudge you as those who prejudged the innocent Duke Three and the entire lacrosse team. Therefore, I respectfully request you respond to my letter so I may better understand why you would write such a vile article. Below is my response to your article.

I sit and ponder, how could any woman be so cruel and callous, and judge a whole class of individuals without any facts. What was more puzzling and definitely more alarming was that you had a son convicted of rape and attempted murder, and who was going to be tried for the murder of two others. It has always been my belief that educators not only had a moral obligation but a duty to have an open mind and to encourage your students to do the same. I teach History to high school students. Clearly, you do not understand this obligation. My first reaction was to attack, but what would be the sense. I wondered, do you attack our sons, because you feel guilt for your own failures as a mother? Do you attack our sons, because you are so selfish that you cannot stand the thought of our sons leading successful lives, when your son did not and can not? Do you attack our sons to justify your own short comings? Do you attack our sons because it's easier than looking yourself in the mirror? Do you attack our sons because they are innocent and your son was not? The answer may be yes to all of those questions. How sad for you that you have been reduced to a pathetic, heartless individual. While people with souls and hearts, would suffer and wallow in their own pain for a while, when the dust settles, they would fight to turn a tragic situation into something positive. Instead, you are so self centered, you have made yourself the victim in your son's death and in the Duke hoax.

"We all leave footprints in the sand, the question is, will we be a big heal, or a great soul." - Source Unknown

This week I was touched by two families who have suffered the worst imaginable loss in any parent's life, the loss of a child. One was Rachel Scott, age 17, the first person killed at Columbine, the second was Louis Acompora, age 14, killed while playing the game he loved, lacrosse, by a syndrome known as commotio cordis. What struck me is that both these remarkable young individuals were able to leave a lasting legacy that has and will continue to touch million of hearts and souls. Rachel Scott's legacy has been the formation of Rachael's Challenge which challenges us and inspires us all to do random acts of kindness. Louis Acompora's foundation has saved countless individuals by making defibulators available in schools and other public areas.

Though I cannot compare the loss of a child, with the loss of a child's trust in the kindness and goodness of man, I wrestle with what will be the legacy of our sons and our families as we emerge from this travesty of justice. Rachel Scott said, "Look hard enough and you'll always find a light." So I have challenged myself to find "my light".

At this time the path is dim for I have not let go of the anger and rage I feel against Nifong for creating and continuing this hoax for his own personal and political gain; against the Duke administration for abandoning our sons, even today as the evidence clearly shows their innocence, and using the lacrosse team and Coach Pressler as the scapegoats in a feeble attempt to protect Duke's reputation; against some of the Duke faculty for condemning and harassing our sons without a scintilla of evidence to further their own philosophical agendas; and against [accuser's name withheld] for not having the courage to end this charade by telling the truth.

However, I also recognize that to find the light I must choose forgiveness. Forgiveness does not mean I do not want Nifong disbarred or Duke to walk away without an apology to our sons. Forgiveness is just the ceasing to feel resentment and anger. I am not there today, but I am at a point that I must consider the possibility that there is a "light", for if I do not, I will find myself like you, Professor Holloway, a sad, bitter, resentful woman, attempting to squash the dreams of others because after your own personal tragedy you were not able to find your "light" and therefore have no dreams of your own.

When Colin, Reade and Dave are exonerated, what will be our legacy? I believe these three courageous young men will be great souls. They have showed us over the past six months how to handle adversity with class and dignity that is beyond their years. Each one of these young men will leave lasting imprints on all those they touch. They will have entered the eye of a hurricane and come out to tell others abut it. The legacy of the lacrosse team will be that of "truth". We will not stop, no matter what, in our quest to let the world know the truth of what transpired on March 13/14, the lacrosse team has stood steadfast in the events that occurred, even after being vilified publicly.

But what will my legacy be? I need to find a goal, as do many of the mothers and fathers of the lacrosse team, so we will be able to try to make sense out of something that has no sense. It may be a crusade to protect the "accused's" identity in rape cases much like the accuser's. Sadly, even when the young men are exonerated, there will still be many who will characterize the lacrosse team as "rapists". There will still be whispers. Many still want to turn a blind eye to the facts. Without any evidence the Durham Police Department, put our son's pictures on a "Wanted Poster" and published it in main stream national media for days. Colin, Reade and Dave's pictures, continue to be shown in the mainstream media. I hope I am able to emerge from this travesty with a vision to make the choice to make a change to protect other innocent young men.

I live the negative impact of this hoax daily knowing the three families live it greater than I do. I hope that one day I have the strength to choose to make a positive impact for if I don't, I may waste my life, like you, Prof. Holloway, wallowing in self pity. You are a big heal in the sand, I chose to be a great soul.

The Scott and Acompora families will be my inspiration! They will lead me to my light. You have also inspired me, of what I choose not to become.

Patricia Dowd Mother of Duke Lacrosse Player, Kyle Dowd

The following is Professor Holloway's response.

Nov. 6, 2006

Dear Patricia Dowd,

Indeed, you should have held off sending it. Your letter reflects nothing so much as an impoverished spirit and intellect. What a shame, for you, and your family.

Karla FC Holloway

This is the same Professor who quit the Campus Culture Initiative (CCI) because the Duke's Administration did come to her defense in response to the attacks of her and the rest of the G88 from letters and blogs to the University newspaper. With this type of arrogant response, does she deserve defending? If the reply to the email is not enough justification for the firing of Professor Holloway, nothing is.

Professors Davidson, Holloway, and Curtis, please answer one question

I have a simple request to anyone who has a chance to question Professors Davidson, Holloway, Curtis, or any members of the Group of 88,

"Do you want to base your claim of institutional racism and sexism at Duke on the credibility of the accuser?"

I know that she is the perfect victim for the group, a single, black mother, who "stripes" for a living.

Why is the behavior of the players only being questioned?

Anyone, male or female can order strippers over the phone, like a pizza, anywhere the country. This ability is not limited to "white athletes at a prominent university" aren't the only ones who can.

"Why aren't the actions, lifestyle, and behavior of the accuser being questioned?"

Prof. Davidson is only concerned about the ability of "white athletes" to do the ordering. She writes:

"It is an educator's job to bring the lessons of history to bear as we try to understand the full and on-going social implications of what happened long before March 13, 2006, and will continue long after. Studying this social disaster must be on the lesson plan for our future, no matter what happens next in this miserable incident."

Isn't it an educator's job to notice similarities to other scandal from the past, say "Tawana Brawley!"

1. Were these educators outraged when four black men beat the crap out of Reginald Denny?
   
2. When, on April, 7th, 2006, NYU Student John Hehman was killed by a car when being chased by a gang of black teenagers screaming "Get Whitey"?

A "social disaster" refers to complex power arrangements that underpin even minor events and give those events symbolic (and disturbing) meaning for society as a whole. So is it a disaster when, black-on-white crime is just a crime, but white-on-black crime is racism?

So, how is the view from the Ivory Tower? The air must be reaaly thin up there.

"Stripper Lied ... White Boys Fried" by Ann Coulter

Please read the latest article by Ann Coulter. This woman has the most cutting wit, biting sarcasm, and writing style that makes me envious. I may not agree with all of her positions (I think she has been wrong about three times), but she does boil down the situation to an extremely succinct lead that says it all.

Duke Professor Karla Holloway quits Race Committee

Karla Holloway, the William R. Kenan Jr., Professor of English and Professor of Law at Duke has quit the Campus Culture Initiative, to protest the decision to lift the suspensions of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.

"In her resignation letter, Holloway criticized the Duke administration for not coming to her defense, as attacks in the form of blogs and letters to the university newspaper have mounted in recent months."

Talk about living in an ivory tower. Prof. Holloway and Vice Provost Davidson seem to think academia should by free from outside criticism of anything they say or do. Both have complained about bloggers. It is ironic that Holloway complains about the lack of support/defense by the administration from the attacks.

Professor Holloway, why don't you ask David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann about the lack of support/defense from the faculty and administration when viciously attacked by the Group of 88, the pot-bangers, the New Black Panther Party, etc. It's not very pleasant when the shoe is on the other foot.

Chemistry Professor Steven Baldwin wrote in a column for the Duke Chronicle:

"The faculty who publicly savaged the character and reputations of specific men's lacrosse players last spring should be ashamed of themselves.

They should be tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed from the academy. Their comments were despicable. I suspect they were also slanderous, but we'll hear more about that later."

The Economics Faculty made the statement in their letter to the Chronicle:

"We welcome all members of the lacrosse team, and all student athletes, as we do all our students as fellow members of the Duke community, to the classes we teach and the activities we sponsor."

Professor Holloway, you are a professor of Law, how do you justify a comment such as:

"Justice inevitably has an attendant social construction. And this parallelism means that despite what may be our desire, the seriousness of the matter cannot be finally or fully adjudicated in the courts."

Professor Holloway, it's not just the bloggers who thinks your a loon, irresponsible, and needs to be dismissed. Your colleagues agree with the bloggers!!!

Diametric forces at Duke

As usual KC Johnson was done a masterful explanation of the various constituencies at Duke that President Brodhead must cater to. They are:

1. Legal
2. Parents/prospective students
3. Alumni
4. Faculty
5. Trustees

And they all have opposing demands. He goes through and explains each groups demands and how they are the opposite of another group. So the next question becomes, which group will win? A few faculty members have been very vocal about their positions. Prof. Karla Holloway just resigned from the Campus Culture Initiative (CCI) over the reinstatement of Finnerty and Seligmann. She seems adamant into turning the lacrosse scandal and the accused students into the sacrificial lambs of all past discrimination suffer by all blacks in American history. The Economics Professors who released a statement welcoming all students are a refreshing change and show some faculty are capable of logical reasoned thought. So does Brodhead have to worry about an attack from the faculty? Most well informed people, including Brodhead, remember the faculty led revolt and eventual resignation of President Larry Summers from Harvard a couple of years back. With the statement released by the Econ. Professors, it doesn't seem like a majority of the faculty will be a problem.

Based on the comments of the Board of Trustees Chairman Bob Steel, Brodhead's job does not appear to be in jeopardy. One can glean from the lack of comments or actions by the board, they have approved of Brodhead's management of the scandal.

The parents and prospective student have spoken, there was a 20% in early decisions applications, and a 3% in total applications. Some seem to think that a 3% is not significant, and Duke still get 11 applications for every freshman slot. The true measure is the drop in in early admissions. These applicants represent the cream of the crop, the kids that apply to the Ivy League and Stanford. The drop indicates the most desirable students are going elsewhere!

The Legal angle is that students are suing the school. Dowd's suit will be the first on many suits against the school for the actions and non-actions during the first few weeks of the scandal. Some legal experts have speculated the invitation by the school in reinstate Finnerty and Seligmann is an attempt to lessen the damages suffered by the players, some even believe if the players accept the invitation and return to school, their claim of damages may disappear.

That leaves one group, the Alumni. The 12 city tour of Alumni Dinners by Brodhead with an entourage of faculty and students

"is part of a larger push to blunt publicity generated by gang-rape allegations involving lacrosse players. The charges resulted in an embarrassing examination of the school's social and academic culture."

This seems to be the group Duke's is now worst worried about. Alumni donations are the bread and butter of private universities.

The fallicy of the gender pay gap.

Duke's Vice Provost Cathy Davidson wrote a defense of the Group of 88 (G88) statement for the Raleigh News & Observer. In it she wrote:

"We live in the midst of a social disaster where women's salaries for similar jobs are substantially less than men's (and, as of this year, starting to go down again, not up)."

I have a simple question for the English Professor,

Why do any men have jobs?

As an evil capitalist, I would want to maximize my profits. So why would I hire any men if I can get women to do the same work for less?

What are the political leaning of the Group of 88 members?

I have re-read the Group of 88 Listening Statement (link) . The statement has the following quotes,

"Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism.... These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves.... We go to class with racist classmates; we go to gym with people who are racists...."

I have also re-read Vice Provost Cathy Davidson's defense of the statement as well.

"Many black students at Duke disappeared into humiliation and rage as the lacrosse players were being elevated to the status of martyrs, innocent victims of reverse racism... A team of distinguished athletes at an elite and highly respected university hired two local women to strip.... That those women were women of color underscores the appalling power dynamics of the situation....The lacrosse incident became one of the top news stories of 2006 because Americans saw the case as symbolic of many of their deepest social concerns. Race, gender, sexuality, class, athletics, the South, poverty, privilege, the younger generation.... And we live in a situation where a group of white athletes at a prominent university can get drunk and call out for a stripper the way they would a pizza."

When you dissect the parts of the statements shown above from both articles, a few concepts continue to be emphasized; gender, race, and class. Professor KC Johnson at the blog Durham in Wonderland and has a breakdown about the signatories of the G88 statement. 80% of the African & African American Studies (AAAS) Department faculty, 72.2% of the Woman's Studies (WS) Program, and 32.2% of the English Department faculty signed the statement. 58 — an astonishing 84.1 percent—describe their research interests as related to race, class, or gender (or all three). Let's look at some of the Professors who signed the statement:

Wahneema H Lubiano - African & African American Studies and Women's Studies faculty member
Karla FC Holloway - African & African American Studies, Women's Studies, English Department, and Law School faculty member, specialties in African American Literature, Gender & Sexuality Studies
Cathy Davidson - English Department and Women's' Studies faculty member
Kim Curtis - Political Science faculty member, specializes in political theory with particular concentration in ... feminist theory
Houston Baker - English Department and African & African American Studies
Peter Wood - History Department, research interest in Long term interests in race relations.
Mark Anthony Neal - African & African American Studies, scholarly interests are in black popular culture, black feminist and queer theory and black intellectual production.

These are some of the most vocal members of the Group of 88. Their interests clearly show a leaning to issues of race and gender.

Vice Provost Cathy Davidson's statement also has the following text:

"most of my e-mail comes from right-wing "blog hooligans." These hateful, ranting and sometimes even threatening folks don't care about Duke or the lacrosse players. Their aim is to make academics and liberals look ridiculous and uncaring ....We are in the midst of a social disaster where 18 percent of the American population lives below the poverty line and a disproportionate number of those are African-American. We live in the midst of a social disaster where 30 percent of our students do not graduate from high school (making the U.S. No. 17 in the world). We live in the midst of a social disaster where women's salaries for similar jobs are substantially less than men's (and, as of this year, starting to go down again, not up). We live in the midst of a social disaster where we do not have national health care or affordable childcare."

It should not be very hard to tell that she is a liberal and most likely unwilling to admit it. The attack of "right wing blog hooligans" is meant deflect criticism of the G88. You have to ask yourself, what does the graduation rate of high school students, the percentage of the population under the poverty line, gender pay disparity, national healthcare, and/or affordable childcare have to do with this criminal case? A few questions for Prof. Davidson, why don't you condemn the members of the New Black Panther Party who protested on campus and shouted death threats and more against Seligmann when went to court? Why does racism only go one way? Why hasn't the G88 condemned the statements from a NCCU student that the Duke 3 should be prosecuted "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."

Remove class and race from the case. It boils down to a woman falsely accusing three men of raping her. This is not a right wing/left wing issue. It is criminal matter, not a gender issue, and not a race issue.

BCS system are a fraud, we need a playoff system.

Let us review the bowl games of the last 10 days or so:

The Rose Bowl: #8 - USC crushes #3 - Michigan 32 to 18
Fiesta Bowl: #9 - Boise State upsets #7 Oklahoma 43 to 42 in overtime
BCS Championship: #2 Florida blows out #1 Ohio State 41 to 14

So does Florida deserve an unshared title? Boise State went undefeated. Florida has one loss against #11 Auburn. USC is out since they lost to unranked Oregon and UCLA.

We need a playoff system. Boise State needs a shot at Florida.

What happens after the troops withdrawl?

I wan watching the Sunday News Programs with the various guests, like Sen. Joe Biden, Sen Lindsay Graham, Speaker Nancy Pelosi,Rep. Henry Waxman, and Rep. David Obey were all stating the need for the US to withdraw from Iraq. They all stated in one way or another, since the Democrats control both houses with major victories in last November's elections, troop draw downs are what the American People expect.

But Lindsay Graham asked Sen Joe Biden to answer one simple question, "What do you do then?" What will US do about terrorism after the troops leave Iraq? How does the US respond to Iran taking over parts of southern Iraq and Turkey attacks northern Iraq?

All of these questions were left unanswered by Biden. To no surprise.

Lacrosse Player vs. The Professor - The first of hopefully many lawsuits against Duke (Updated)

(Updated to clarify some points:)

Many people, myself included, have reacted with dismay/confusion of the action, non-actions, reactions, and behavior of the Duke Administration and faculty over the Duke Rape Sexual Assault Hoax. President Brodhead's cancelling of the season, firing forced resignation of the coach, and his statement that a trial will allow the players to be "proved innocence".

I have blogged, as well as many others (KC Johnson, Lie Stopper, John in Carolina) about the actions of the Group of 88 (G88) members of the faculty. As of January 4, 2007, the first of what I hope are many lawsuits against the Duke University and the faculty has been files for harassment and grade retaliation.

There have been many reports by players and students of harassment of lacrosse players. In an article in the Duke Chronicle, Senior John Walsh was told by one of his teacher's,

"Yeah, well if you guys really were innocent, I would feel sorry for you," he remembered the teacher telling him."I couldn't look the teacher in the eyes again," Walsh said. "I never want to see her again."

Another example is Prof. Peter Wood, who taught two of the indicted players, described Seligmann as “cynical, arrogant, callous, dismissive -- you could almost say openly hostile,” while offering no proof. Wood also claimed, in an article in New Yorker Magazine that on a teaching evaluations for a Spring 2004 class one student wrote, “I wish all the Indians had died; then we wouldn’t have to study them.” He concluded that the remark came from one of the lacrosse players in the class. His evidence? “I had sixty-five students. Ten lacrosse players. Most of the students loved it [the class]. It was a good class.”

John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, said, "We did hear rumors early on, reports early on, that some faculty members were permitting a potentially hostile situation within a classroom environment."

So it such come as no surprise that one professor would fail two players in her class in direct retaliation for the alleged attack. Prof. Kim Curtis not only signed the G88 statement, but participated in the rallies with the pot-bangers. (See photos 1 & 2) This case may not be the first time Prof. Curtis has failed a student for political reasons. After reading through the entire lawsuit papers, if any one of the many allegations are proven true, the Professor loses.

At first, one thinks, how can the University be held liable for the actions of a "renegade" professor? A lack of response/adequate supervision. President Brodhead did nothing to restrain the actions or activities of the faculty. Vice Provost Cathy Davidson still tries to justify the G88 statement in an op-ed piece in the Raleigh N&O. She is blaming societal problem on the team since they are rich white guys. As proven above, faculty members routinely slander members of the team without any repercussions.

One blogger has a contrary point of view, he believes that the lawsuit will make her a martyr among academia. He feels that the Department and University should have never allowed it to get this far. He writes:

"Grade retaliation is the grossest violation of ethics. ... [But] Instead of decrying this woman for degrading the academy as a whole with her abuse, academics will rally round her."

He misses dismisses a very important point real possibility, if that this woman and other members of the Duke Faculty are exposed as zealots, driven by political agendas to indoctrineate students with leftist theory, and not scholarly intellectual pursuit, maybe, just maybe, the Alumni and more importantly, major donors will demand idealogical balance from the Administration. The exposure of the faculty's radical left leanings may be the first step in balancing Duke's academic and political makeup (Think of Ward Churchill). But he fears the opposite:

"The other problem is that this is neither a political issue nor an academic freedom issue. Even if Duke fires her, this situation will ripple through the academic community as a political and academic freedom issue. Instead of decrying this woman for degrading the academy as a whole with her abuse, academics will rally round her."

Since Duke's doesn't have a huge endowment like Harvard, doesn't have a it's long history, and is trying to solidify maintain it's reputation as "Harvard of the South", the University may be swayed by major donors and alumni. The Alumni have a vested interst in Duke's reputation and prestige. President Brodhead's 12 city tour of alumni dinners admits the University's response to the scandal has caused problems with the Alumni and reduced the scared off a number prospective students (20% drop in early admittance applications). The Alumni may demand the adoption of David Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights. (ABOR). Duke may possibly be this first Ivy League level University to vie for an ideologically balanced faculty. This would be the domino falling marking the end of leftist domination of college faculties. Well, one can hope.

I am personally cheering on the many (hopefully) coming lawsuits since my own experiences of Political Correctness (PC) in college and the leftist nature of university faculty. I was in an upper division writing class in the summer of 1987. The predominant news story that summer was the Iran-Contra Senate hearings. This class was the last class I need to take to graduate. My professor constantly denigrated Colonel Oliver North and his wife, who was sitting in the gallery. We were having a discussion about the hearings, when I piped up, "What is the big deal?" My professor made a long speech about Reagan's senility, North's dishonesty, and the fact that Reagan 'traded' arms for hostages. I replied,

"Oliver North bought a bunch of unusable and broken military parts from the Israelis, sold them to the Iranians for a profit, thereby releasing Americans kidnapped by Iranian funded terrorists, then used the profits from the sale to arm the Contras, since the Democratic controlled Congress unconstitutionally passed the Boland Amendment preventing the Executive Branch from setting foreign policy, to fund anti-communist freedom fighters trying to overthrow a communist dictatorship. I don't see the problem?"

Needless to say, she scored me very low for my point of view, but gave me high marks for the well researched and documented arguments.

Update: As usual KC Johnson has more info on Prof. Kim Curtis history. The failing of the two lacrosse players isn't seem to the the first time she went out of her way to destroy the academic career of a Duke student. She went out of her way in 2004 to accuse a white male, ROTC candidate, helmet wearing student-athlete of lying, which resulted in a two semester suspension.

Kudos to the Duke Economics Department and shame on the rest of the Faculty

In my haste to write about Prof. Davidson's justification about her signing of the Group of 88 (G88) statement, I failed to mention the advertisement in the Duke Chronicle by 17 members of the Duke Economics department. KC Johnson has an excellent analysis of their statement, as usual. He blogs that the Econ department is speaking out on three important issues.

1. that Mike Nifong's misconduct demands investigation;
2. that the Group of 88 does not speak for all Duke faculty;
3. that all Duke students--including student-athletes--are welcome in the signatories' classes.

Prof. Johnson has a breakdown about the signatories of the G88 statement. 80% of the African & African American Studies (AAAS) Department faculty, 72.2% of the Woman's Studies (WS) Program, and 32.2% of the English Department faculty signed the statement. The same English Department that fell apart in the early 90's. 58—an astonishing 84.1 percent—describe their research interests as related to race, class, or gender (or all three). Also notice that 10 department has not signatories, almost all of them are "hard"science, ones based on logical and reasoned thinking. These department's studies require proof, repeatable and confirmed proof, before any theory is accepted. No squishy, touchy feely, emotional based theories where one does not have to provide proof.

So let us look at the Professors who have been at the forefront lambasting and skewering the Lacrosse team and driving the controversy of the Group of 88 'listening' statement.

Wahneema H Lubiano - African & African American Studies and Women's Studies faculty member
Karla FC Holloway - African & African American Studies, Women's Studies, English Department, and Law School faculty member
Cathy Davidson - English Department and Women's' Studies faculty member
Kim Curtis - Political Science faculty member
Houston Baker - English Department and African & African American Studies

Notice a pattern? The African & African American Studies Department, Woman's Studies Program, English Department, and Political Science Department, all have members that are interlinked and tend to be programs that are activist in nature. It seems to me that the members of G88 statement found the perfect crime, defendant, and victim to their world view, black vs. white, poor vs rich, stripper vs. Athlete, blue collar vs. blue blood, female vs. male. A perfect storm, these activist could not have imagined a more perfect scenario to attack the system.

Liberal Professor still doesn't get it.

Cathy Davidson, a signatory of the Group of 88 (G88) 'listening' statement has written an article entitled, "In the aftermath of a social disaster" for the Raleigh News & Observer (N&O). Her position is the Vice Provost of the school, the Ruth F. DeVarney professor of English and interim director and professor of interdisciplinary studies, John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University. Two other bloggers have made cutting responses and analysis of the article, KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland and Michael Gustafson. Both of these blogger have point by point replies to Davidson's statements about atmosphere at Duke and the social concerns raised by the students, faculty, and citizen of Durham as a result of the Rape Hoax. She also makes a feeble attempt to blame DA Mike Nifong for his attempt at Justice and does not recognize the possibility that his behavior was driven by politics.

Davidson also claims that she is "not the only professor who was and continues to be adamant about the necessity for fair and impartial legal proceedings for" the Duke Three. It appears by the lawsuit by a former player against professor Kim Curtis appears to prove otherwise. Assuming the behavior claimed in the lawsuit is true of Prof. Curtis and she retaliated by failing the players solely based on his membership to the lacrosse team, what does this say about the faculty of Duke? Davidson is is justifying her rush to judgement with 87 other member of the faculty. Prof. Peter Wood bashes lacrosse players behavior in class, but offers not proof. Prof. Karla Holloway states, "Men’s innocence means women’s guilt." All these professors signed that statement. What does this say about the mindset of the faculty at Duke, guilty not matter what, for past injustices, these three must be made to suffer.

My main beef with the article is her attack of right-wing "blog hooligans." I do consider myself a member of this group, as well as the pajama media, and all the other derogatory names for the new media. Davidson states:

These hateful, ranting and sometimes even threatening folks don't care about Duke or the lacrosse players. Their aim is to make academics and liberals look ridiculous and uncaring. They deliberately misrepresent the faculty and manipulate the feelings of those who care about the lacrosse players in order to foster their own demagogic political agenda. They contribute to the problem, not to the solution.

We are in the midst of a social disaster where 18 percent of the American population lives below the poverty line and a disproportionate number of those are African-American. We live in the midst of a social disaster where 30 percent of our students do not graduate from high school (making the U.S. No. 17 in the world). We live in the midst of a social disaster where women's salaries for similar jobs are substantially less than men's (and, as of this year, starting to go down again, not up). We live in the midst of a social disaster where we do not have national health care or affordable childcare. And we live in a situation where a group of white athletes at a prominent university can get drunk and call out for a stripper the way they would a pizza.

Davidson lists low graduation rates, salary disparity, lack of national healthcare, and affordable childcare and blames "a situation where a group of white athletes at a prominent university can get drunk and call out for a stripper the way they would a pizza", all on racism and sexism. What she is saying between the lines, every -ism is the fault of white males.

A question a question for the Professor. What happened to the idea of a woman's right to choose? The accuser, Crystal Mangum, chose to work at a stripper. She chose to have three children out of wedlock. She chose to engage in behavior which resulting is a less than honorable discharge from the Navy.

Davidson also attacks 'right wing blog hooligans', but does not recognize her complaints about the racism and sexism at Duke are straight out of the liberal playbook. Is she channeling Speaker Nancy Pelosi during lectures? The Duke Case represents, in her mind; racism, sexism, male chauvinism, and every other -ism that liberals rail about. The same right wing, pajama media blogs she disparages exposed Dan Rather's/CBS fake but accurate story on President Bush, the fauxtography by AP of the war in Iraq. Sandy Burglar's sticky pants and socks, the enemy propaganda Ramadi airstrike, John Murtha and ABSCAM, and finally the Duke Rape Hoax.

Yes, Prof. Davidson, the best, most complete, and accurate coverage of the Duke Lacrosse scandal has been done by the blogs. One in particular, KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland blog. Just a reminder, KC Johnson is a history professor at Brooklyn College, who is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, centrist democrat who's backing Barack Obama for President.

If he is a right wing-hooligan, what does that say about your views?

Gerald Ford and the "nice" media

I was a young boy of 10 when the Watergate break-in, coverup, and scandal occurred. The events leading to the resignation of Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon and the accidental Presidency of Gerald Ford were news events that one wouldn't forget. A man willfully quitting early the job as the most powerful man on the planet is something that wouldn't be taken lightly. I remember the Senate Hearing led by Sam Ervin. There was so much going on. My memory and awareness as a child could understand the magnitude of the unfolding events, but could not understand the significance.

One of the things I do remember was the way the media, like Walter Cronkite, the Los Angeles Times, and Time Magazine took President Ford to task for pardoning Nixon. Now with his passing, virtually all the pundits and news organizations are now praising the man who pardoned Nixon. This is the same media that skewered Reagan at every opportunity, but treated the man with dignity in death. L. Brent Bozell has an article the further details the media reaction to President Ford's death.

I can only imagine the media's orgasmic coverage of the future passing of Jimmy Carter. If you thought the fawning over Reagan and Ford was over the top and nice, wait until Bill Clinton's passing. It will rival Princess Diana's passing.

Academic group-think and stereotyping.

At the urging of the blog Friends of Duke University (FODU), I wrote an email to all the signatories of the Group of 88 (G88) "listening" statement. The statement was a collection of anonymous student expressing concern over the racism and sexism exhibited by the lacrosse team. The statement was posted on the Duke University African & African American Studies website (AAAS) shortly after the initial rape allegations became public, and before the indictments of the players. The website posting the statement been taken down. To view a cached copy of the statement click here. Based on some of the information posted on his blog, Durham in Wonderland by CUNY American History Professor KC Johnson and some research of my own into the faculty and signatories of the G88 statement. It should scare any student considering to attend Duke.

Here is some background on some of the professors at Duke as well as some scandals from their english department.

Professor Johnson has some disturbing information on Wahneema Lubiano, who has a thoroughly undistinguished publishing record. Two book were forthcoming from the Duke University Press in 1997 and again in 2003. A quick check of the Duke University Press website shows that neither book has been published. She has been teaching at Duke since 1996.

Professor Johnson also has some background and historical information on Karla FC Holloway. She is the William Rand Kenan Professor of English at Duke as well as hold appointment in the Law School and Woman's Studies. After reading the information collected by Prof. Johnson and many of her comments, it should not come as a surprise that she is part of the Woman's Studies Program, but at also at the Law School? Based on her Women's Studies website, she received a Master in Legal Studies (MLS) from Duke in 2005. She teaches a class called "Language of Constitutional Law" at the Law School. Considering a student such as Dr. Holloway, and her teaching position at the Law School, and the many inflammatory comments like, "White innocence mean black guilt," in a journal called The Scholar and Feminist Online, one has to wonder about the quality Duke's Law School. Professor Johnson has analyzed the article and one of her arguments, which I find very disturbing is

"The courts will not reach the desired outcome to advance her on-campus aims, and so their results must be preemptively [sic] dismissed."

So, determining the innocence or guilt of the three players is not important. Determining whether the accuser is making false allegations is not important. This is coming from professor at Duke's Law. Professor Johnson analysis of the article states, "those who have such a dismissive attitude toward events 'confined to a courtroom' are unlikely to champion due process and standard procedures."

The Duke English Department was embroiled in a scandal in the late 80's to early 90's. Michael Skube, in a op-ed piece in the LA Times, "Duke's English department, once a hotbed of cutting-edge literary theory, imploded in a blaze of backbiting and backstabbing and had to be put in the temporary care of a botanist." For details of the scandal read, "The Department that fell to Earth."

National Review has an article about the Duke University Writing Course (UWC).

After reading the research done by Prof. Johnson as well as some digging on my own, one has to ask a few questions. Does Duke deserve the moniker, "Harvard of the South?" Is the behavior of the professors typical or an anomaly? Or is the behavior of the faculty typical of the Ivy Leagues, so the moniker of Harvard of the South correct? Is an Ivy League education truly special? Or is the Ivy League the breeding ground for the Politically Correct? Think of Lawrence Summers, former President at Harvard. Or is it just a pedigree to open doors that would be closed to the rest of us?