Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Duke Community Forum > Member Initiated Topics > Group Of 88+ Faculty


Posted by: alice Sep 28 2006, 11:17 AM
Duke 'Group of 88+' Faculty

[DOHTML]

Posted by: alice Oct 2 2006, 01:33 PM
[DOHTML]

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:34 PM
Alice
I tried linking the actual ad, but can't copy it. You can find the ad under this link

http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf

At the end you will see the following statement:

"We thank the following departments and programs for signing onto this ad with African & African American Studies:Romance Studies; Psychology, Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanitities Institute, Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies, Asian & African Languages & Literature; Women's Studies; Latino/a Studies, Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies. Because of space limitation, the names of individual faculty and staff who signed on in support may be read at the AAAS website:http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/
listening.pdf

Would you want your kid at such a school????

GC

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:35 PM
http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/sfonline/sport/holloway_01.htm

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:38 PM
Alice,

There is interesting material on Orin Starn (his passion for golf and how he is always at the Duke basketball games at Cameroon Stadium, etc.) in the September 7 ESPN Magazine. Here is the link:

Months later, unanswered questions haunt Duke
http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/03/expired-documents.html#c115858827082865548

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:38 PM

The same ESPN Magazine article has interesting quotes from Lubiano too. She basically admits that they were taking advantage of the situation to push for their agendas.

Excerpt from the article:

"Lubiano knew some would see the ad as a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team. But if the black faculty couldn't speak for black students now, could it ever?"

This is a very telling quote. We do not need to hear from Lubiano any more. She clarified it for us beyond any doubt.

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:39 PM
Here is one more for your list. A history professor from Duke thanking DPD for arresting Duke students with or without a reason. Yes, it is clear. There are serious problems in Duke, and they have nothing to do with lacrosse or rape. They have everything to do with lunatic professors who hate their students.
------------------------------
From Herald-Sun (where else?)

Thanks, Durham police

I hope that the Durham police officers who arrested Duke students for noise and alcohol violations in the autumn of 2005 realize how grateful most of us in Trinity Park are to them.

Their actions gave us the hope that we might once again have a peaceful, family neighborhood in which to live.

And we hope that these officers or their successors will also remember that every September brings a new crop of students who want to live off-campus and who appear never to learn from the experiences of their predecessors.

Please, Durham Police Department, continue to defend our neighborhood.

ELGIN W. MELLOWN
Durham
September 18, 2006

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:39 PM
On the positive side, here is a response to Orin Starn's recent letter (from Herald Sun):
------------------------------------
Starn needs a Plan B

In response to Professor Orin Starn's article in The Herald-Sun on Sept. 15: I would certainly be interested in the professor's Plan B regarding athletic reform. Assuming, for argument's sake, Duke would drop its participation in Division I competition and offer only club sports, let's play out this scenario and some of its adverse consequences.

Duke would lose national exposure, suffer a considerable loss in financial support from alumni, lose all of the coaches presently on staff and most of the employees in the athletic department. Furthermore, Professor Starn's plan for athletic reform at Duke will bite off a portion of the hand that helps feed the academic prowess Duke enjoys.

Starn's proposal is hallmark thinking of a provincial ivory tower academic. Duke Athletics will weather this latest storm and be stronger for the effort.

Rather than displaying this divisiveness, which is not needed at this time when the University is attempting to heal, Starn should show some loyalty.

And while Starn is at it, he should come down out of that ivory tower once in awhile, look at the positive side of athletics and cheer for the Blue Devils.

FRAN HAMACHER
Durham
September 19, 2006

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:40 PM
Finally a bright light in Durham. And it took another woman to say it!

GC

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:40 PM
Alice,

Here is another good link for you. This one is a gold mine on your topic.

More Group of 88 Hypocrisy June 27, 2006
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-group-of-88-hypocrisy.html

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:41 PM
FODU: Thanks for the link to the Karla Holloway article. I just read it and it almost made me sick. This article shows better than any other I read the frame of mind of the Group of 88. Nothing can come out of the investigation which will change the minds of these people on the Lax players. They sound like this "false rape" was the best thing that ever happened to them! If one day the accuser says she lied, these people will cry and say "no, we insist, there was a rape!" They are desperate.

I will get around to processing all this stuff some time soon. I may do a "Best of ..." series for a selected 5 or 10 members of the Group of 88. Anyway, please keep those links and information coming. Thanks.

Alice

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:42 PM
Alice,

You are in luck. KC Johnson has done great a service again by writing about Karla Holloway's bearly readable article in Barnard's. Do not miss it, lots of good stuff there. See the link:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/travails-of-karla-holloway.html

Take care.

Leo

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Oct 2 2006, 01:42 PM
From DBR!

From Duke Basketball Report (DBR)
Posted on 09/27/06 13:49
by Rudra

Okay, anybody who has taken a course in anthropology for anything other than (1) a gut course; (2) a filler; or (3) a curiosity, that is, to find out what the heck it is, and why anyone would devote their entire life to it, raise your right hand. That's what I thought.

Who is this guy Starns and why do they pay him six digits to teach people about something that only a few people will ever use (that is, if they actually know what the heck it is) and even less care about? We'll leave that for another day, but I have a real hard time believing that any of you came to this fine institution because you were just dying to be touched by Professor Starns or anything that he has to offer.

Could we say any of those things about Coach K? I don't think so boys and girls. A man of terrific stature and vision, who has contributed to Duke University and the character of its body politic at least as much as any other person in the school's history. That's right, Starnsie, live with it; put that in your anthropological pipe and smoke it. When they talk of leadership, team building, community, goal setting and achievement, not only as individuals but as part of larger groups, the ethos of a place, you know, the things that anthropologists are supposed to inquire about, whose name is gonna come up? Yours. Please.

Look, this guy Starns cannot even apologize without trying to climb the back of Coach K to build his audience. In his first letter, Starns blew past the frightful condemnations being launched at the LAX team members by faculty and students. Instead, he attempted to piggy back on Coach K's fame by actually blaming K for not speaking out on the issue, presumably to pile on against the lacrosse team who Starns now concedes were unfairly accused, including the Duke 3 who he concedes NOW probably should never have been indicted. That apology, which in my book is way too little, and way too late, is not enough for Starns. He says that Coach K should not be concerned with helping heal the wounds that folks like Starns were responsible for creating in the first instance, wounds that his colleagues Wood and Holloway, among others, are continuing to inflict. Hey Starns, if not Coach K, who's gonna do it. Or should we leave it to the anthropologists to answer, whatever the heck it is that they have to contribute.

Boycotts work!!!!

Duke08Parent

Posted by: alice Oct 2 2006, 02:21 PM
Moderator, thank you for moving my topic from the old "open board" to this new one. I will take it from here.

Posted by: Judith Oct 31 2006, 06:25 PM
Here is another story about what I believe is "selective justice" by the Group of 88. I have written about this case on other blogs.

My son was in the Duke class of '05. He was in Kim Curtis's course
(PS104 Politics and Literature) in Spring 2004. He was an Army ROTC
student, an athlete and the very antithesis of Political Correctness!
I suspect that these three facts played some part in causing Kim
Curtis to single him out for "special treatment."

I had put this whole incident behind me, but this lacrosse issue has gotten me so
steamed up, that I pulled out the few documents that I had saved. But I recently
reread my son's account and the findings of the Judicial Review Board.

My son was on a Duke club roller hockey team that won the regionals and
received an invitation to the National Tournament to be held in LA on
April 14th to the 19th, 2004. Duke paid for the students to attend
this tournament. Before leaving he informed all of his professors
about his impending absence, and they approved, as long as he turned
his assigned papers in before he left.

The core of Professor Curtis's assignments in this class consisted of
writing three papers, with a very complicated system of drafts and
peer reviews, with a total of 6 turn-ins and hand-backs per paper.

According the the syllbuses that she handed out, she often changed due
dates on papers, and was often late in returning drafts that she or
her assistant had reviewed.

Kim Curtis said that the second of these three papers that my son had
written was not "on her door" on April 19, when it was due (he
was away at this time in California). When he returned from his
Hockey club trip, Kim Curtis informed him about his missing paper. He
forwarded the paper on April 20 via email.

He was taking a heavy course load of writing courses this semester.
No other professors accused him of turning papers in late, In fact in
his other courses he received the following final grades:
Hist 115C Intro to African Studies (McDonic) B+
Hist 118B Warfare in the 20th Cent. (Carlton) B-
PolSci 157D Foreign Policy of the US (Eldridge) B+
MilSci 114 Adv. Tactical Application (Scott) A

Because Prof. Curtis does not accept late work, she failed him for this
second paper, and then for the course as a whole, even though he did
do the other two required papers (including the third paper), and
otherwise (apparently) performed adequately in her class.

Later in May after finals were over and the students were dismissed for the
summer (and well after the April 19 incident), Brad was notified by Dean Bryan
that Kim Curtis had officially brought charges against him of Lying to the Undergraduate Judicial Board.

He was notified about his rights, and given a list of Judicial Advisors. He was away
most of the summer with Army ROTC training, and he was unable to get any of
the Advisors to respond to him or to help him with his case. (Of course I am telling
you "his" side of the story, because I was not aware that this was going on).

He was notified that his hearing would occur on August 27 (before
classes had even started). He was able to get find a Judicial Advisor to help
him several days before his hearing, and she was wonderful, but
totally hampered by a lack of time to prepare the case.

I met with her after the hearing and she told me that she had tried to
research the precedent cases to the best of her ability, and was unable to
find any other case of a student put into the Judicial system for
Lying about turning a paper in late. She also said that if she had
the time that she would have called witnesses who had been in the
class with my son about the disorganization of Professor Curtis, who was
constantly changing deadline dates and also returning draft papers
late.

Unfortunately, my son did not tell me about ANY OF THIS until after the
hearing on August 27. I attribute this to his being naive and also
very busy with his ROTC commitments over the summer and with incoming
ROTC students that fall. When he told me a few days after the hearing that
he was in danger of being suspended, I immediately flew to Durham, met
with Dean Bryan and reviewed all the documents that my son had in his
possession, including the syllabuses that Professor Curtis had issued
and then reissued with different dates. I also reviewed the emails
that went back and forth between her and the class about how she was
unable to return the draft papers on time to the students.
(Unfortunately I no longer have these).

He was found "Responsible" for Lying on August 27, 2004. His DukeCard was
immediately invalidated, so that he could not get into his dorm or even buy a meal.

He appealed the decision on September 9, 2004, but was denied, and
he was ordered to vacate his West Campus dorm room within 48 hours.
(According to the housing office, no exceptions. "He could stay in
the commons area as long as he removed his belongings from his dorm
room.") Since he did not have a car, I started the long drive to Duke
immediately (leaving two younger children at home).

As a family we just decided that he should use the incident as a
learning experience, and reapply. He did reapply, completed his two
semesters, and officially graduated in May 2006.

I am a Duke Grad (BS '74 and MHA '78). I had a great experience
there, and my dream was that all my four children would go to Duke.
My husband and I have been consistent donors of time and money on
behalf of the University, and we recently endowed a scholarship fund
for future students who might not be able to foot the $46,000 bill
(yikes!).

My youngest son is a freshman at Duke now, and working very hard.
And he is interested in History and Political Science and so he will have some
of these professors.

And at this point I have no doubt that Professor Curtis and other Duke
professors and administrators know who I am and that I have posted about this
case. So of course I am worried that my youngest son may also be singled out
for "special treatment."

In no way am I looking for vindication for my oldest son. What was taken away
from him cannot be restored. Just as what has been taken away from these
Lacrosse players can never be restored, no matter whether they go to trial, no
matter what the verdict.

My point is that some of these professors because of their intolerance and
ideological agenda are a threat to the integrity and well-being of their students
and also to the University as an institution.

Posted by: raleighdukie Nov 1 2006, 10:19 AM
This is all too typical of the way student judicial systems operate. They are agenda driven and skewed toward the University's political interests. I was asked to observe a hearing at another university involving my nephew. There was no semblance of due process. The prosecution had the resources of the University while the "defense" had only an inexperienced student advocate who was unprepared and sandbagged. They clearly violated their own rules of procedure. The appellate process was a sham.

I would like to see Duke and other schools create a system in which all such hearings are observed by a disinterested alumnus or community member not otherwise involved with the university. The observer should then be asked to write his/her opinion of the procedure and outcome of the hearing. I'd like to see this for all hearings, but at the very least for those which could result in suspension or expulsion.

Posted by: alice Nov 2 2006, 12:29 PM
Another name to be added to the "list of shame" Details included in the link:

Policing Vile Metaphors & Idiot Professors - November 2, The Johnville News
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/11/policing-vile-metaphors-idiot.html




Posted by: white_fang Nov 24 2006, 09:12 AM
Alice:
Here is a link you will like.

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/michael-gustafson-speaks-out.html

Sorry, I meant to post this under the Good Guys category, not here.

Posted by: Leo Dec 1 2006, 04:42 PM
Alice,

Here is a retraction. You may want to add it to your list

Lacrosse retraction
http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/03/expired-documents-2.html#c116498501564264478

Posted by: Leo Dec 7 2006, 08:58 PM
Alice,

I now understand why/how your list went down by one. I totally agree with you on that decision.

Leo

Posted by: Darcy Dec 11 2006, 04:53 PM
Here is a real good contribution from KC Johnson:

Wahneema's World
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/wahneemas-world.html

Posted by: DukeEgr93 Dec 29 2006, 12:56 PM
Neither Peter Wood nor Orin Starn signed the ad - there needs to be a clear separation between the signatories and the people added for other reasons to make sure that anything said specifically about the ad is legit, IMHO

Posted by: fodu_admin_1 Jan 5 2007, 04:28 PM
Courses Taught by G88 Members - Spring 2007

Below you will find a list of the courses taught by G88 members during Spring 2007. The file is in Excel format and consists of two sheets. The first sheet shows the course information sorted by course number. The second sheet is sorted by instructor's first name.

We hope you find this information useful.

Posted by: Leo Jan 6 2007, 01:25 PM
Thank you for adding the course list for the G88 on this website. this is useful information to have.

Posted by: Emily Brontë Jan 10 2007, 11:22 AM
Alice,

Here is a new development in the G88. I am sure you will refletc it in your table.

Holloway Leaves CCI
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/holloway-leaves-cci.html

Posted by: Duke Mom Feb 8 2007, 02:47 PM
Alice, you may consider adding this link somewhere above your table. If a lot of Duke students sign up, it could be quite telling.

Duke Students Respond to the "Gang of 88"
http://www.dukenewsense.com/blog/2007/02/duke-students-respond-to-gang-of-88.html

Posted by: floria Feb 14 2007, 03:02 PM
More responses from Duke students to G88 and G89

Facebook group calls for apology
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/02/14/News/Facebook.Group.Calls.For.Apology-2719237.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

I just talked with my son. He said he signed the petition and all of his friends did the same. He says there is great momentum behind the petition and the number of signatures should reach 1000 in no time. This week is the mid-terms week that' why he thinks the collection of signatures is going as slow as it is. This is great news. For the first time, it sounds like Duke students are really going to voice their concern. The fact that the petition is being held on the FaceBook is a huge plus.

Posted by: GPackwood Feb 16 2007, 12:09 AM
QUOTE (Judith @ Oct 31 2006, 06:25 PM)
Here is another story about what I believe is "selective justice" by the Group of 88. I have written about this case on other blogs.

My son was in the Duke class of '05. He was in Kim Curtis's course
(PS104 Politics and Literature) in Spring 2004. He was an Army ROTC
student, an athlete and the very antithesis of Political Correctness!
I suspect that these three facts played some part in causing Kim
Curtis to single him out for "special treatment."

I had put this whole incident behind me, but this lacrosse issue has gotten me so
steamed up, that I pulled out the few documents that I had saved. But I recently
reread my son's account and the findings of the Judicial Review Board.

My son was on a Duke club roller hockey team that won the regionals and
received an invitation to the National Tournament to be held in LA on
April 14th to the 19th, 2004. Duke paid for the students to attend
this tournament. Before leaving he informed all of his professors
about his impending absence, and they approved, as long as he turned
his assigned papers in before he left.

The core of Professor Curtis's assignments in this class consisted of
writing three papers, with a very complicated system of drafts and
peer reviews, with a total of 6 turn-ins and hand-backs per paper.

According the the syllbuses that she handed out, she often changed due
dates on papers, and was often late in returning drafts that she or
her assistant had reviewed.

Kim Curtis said that the second of these three papers that my son had
written was not "on her door" on April 19, when it was due (he
was away at this time in California). When he returned from his
Hockey club trip, Kim Curtis informed him about his missing paper. He
forwarded the paper on April 20 via email.

He was taking a heavy course load of writing courses this semester.
No other professors accused him of turning papers in late, In fact in
his other courses he received the following final grades:
Hist 115C Intro to African Studies (McDonic) B+
Hist 118B Warfare in the 20th Cent. (Carlton) B-
PolSci 157D Foreign Policy of the US (Eldridge) B+
MilSci 114 Adv. Tactical Application (Scott) A

Because Prof. Curtis does not accept late work, she failed him for this
second paper, and then for the course as a whole, even though he did
do the other two required papers (including the third paper), and
otherwise (apparently) performed adequately in her class.

Later in May after finals were over and the students were dismissed for the
summer (and well after the April 19 incident), Brad was notified by Dean Bryan
that Kim Curtis had officially brought charges against him of Lying to the Undergraduate Judicial Board.

He was notified about his rights, and given a list of Judicial Advisors. He was away
most of the summer with Army ROTC training, and he was unable to get any of
the Advisors to respond to him or to help him with his case. (Of course I am telling
you "his" side of the story, because I was not aware that this was going on).

He was notified that his hearing would occur on August 27 (before
classes had even started). He was able to get find a Judicial Advisor to help
him several days before his hearing, and she was wonderful, but
totally hampered by a lack of time to prepare the case.

I met with her after the hearing and she told me that she had tried to
research the precedent cases to the best of her ability, and was unable to
find any other case of a student put into the Judicial system for
Lying about turning a paper in late. She also said that if she had
the time that she would have called witnesses who had been in the
class with my son about the disorganization of Professor Curtis, who was
constantly changing deadline dates and also returning draft papers
late.

Unfortunately, my son did not tell me about ANY OF THIS until after the
hearing on August 27. I attribute this to his being naive and also
very busy with his ROTC commitments over the summer and with incoming
ROTC students that fall. When he told me a few days after the hearing that
he was in danger of being suspended, I immediately flew to Durham, met
with Dean Bryan and reviewed all the documents that my son had in his
possession, including the syllabuses that Professor Curtis had issued
and then reissued with different dates. I also reviewed the emails
that went back and forth between her and the class about how she was
unable to return the draft papers on time to the students.
(Unfortunately I no longer have these).

He was found "Responsible" for Lying on August 27, 2004. His DukeCard was
immediately invalidated, so that he could not get into his dorm or even buy a meal.

He appealed the decision on September 9, 2004, but was denied, and
he was ordered to vacate his West Campus dorm room within 48 hours.
(According to the housing office, no exceptions. "He could stay in
the commons area as long as he removed his belongings from his dorm
room.") Since he did not have a car, I started the long drive to Duke
immediately (leaving two younger children at home).

As a family we just decided that he should use the incident as a
learning experience, and reapply. He did reapply, completed his two
semesters, and officially graduated in May 2006.

I am a Duke Grad (BS '74 and MHA '78). I had a great experience
there, and my dream was that all my four children would go to Duke.
My husband and I have been consistent donors of time and money on
behalf of the University, and we recently endowed a scholarship fund
for future students who might not be able to foot the $46,000 bill
(yikes!).

My youngest son is a freshman at Duke now, and working very hard.
And he is interested in History and Political Science and so he will have some
of these professors.

And at this point I have no doubt that Professor Curtis and other Duke
professors and administrators know who I am and that I have posted about this
case. So of course I am worried that my youngest son may also be singled out
for "special treatment."

In no way am I looking for vindication for my oldest son. What was taken away
from him cannot be restored. Just as what has been taken away from these
Lacrosse players can never be restored, no matter whether they go to trial, no
matter what the verdict.

My point is that some of these professors because of their intolerance and
ideological agenda are a threat to the integrity and well-being of their students
and also to the University as an institution.

I am just now reading this post and I am just astonished.

I hope others have read what you had to say.

I suggest that the next time you hear anything about a student judicial system and your family, you call an attorney...and fast.

The student judicial is not a branch of any court of law.

Good luck to your freshman son.

He should read these Blogs if he want to study applied political science.

GP




Posted by: Emily Brontë Mar 9 2007, 01:19 PM
Alice,

The current table you have for the G88 is very good and informative. I especially like the easy references/links to what these faculty members have been saying in the media. Are you thinking of creating another similar table for the additional 27 professors who signed the second ad (clarifiers) who were not part of the original G88 (listeners)? For example, Piot would be one of those. If created, the new table will complete the documentation you are presenting here and it will be quite useful.

Just a humble suggestion!

Posted by: BlueDevil55 Mar 20 2007, 09:48 AM
This is a must-read from KC Johnson on the G88.

March Madness, III: The Faculty
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/03/march-madness-iii-faculty.html

And the winners are:

1. Grant Farred
2. William Chafe
3. Karla Holloway

Posted by: alice Mar 28 2007, 05:13 PM
I added Timothy Tyson to Table 3 above.

Posted by: GPackwood Apr 6 2007, 09:20 AM
QUOTE (fodu_admin_1 @ Oct 2 2006, 01:42 PM)
Alice,

You are in luck. KC Johnson has done great a service again by writing about Karla Holloway's bearly readable article in Barnard's. Do not miss it, lots of good stuff there. See the link:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/travails-of-karla-holloway.html

Take care.

Leo

I left this comment for the Professor yesterday in response to her article. It is important that her words referenced here in this earlier post...not be forgotten, I believe.
::
Professor Holloway,

Your words have the sound of one hand clapping... and they are ...too little and too late...from my point of view.

For many months now hundreds of thousands if not millions of highly educated middle age white males have been reading your thoughts and watching you and many of your colleagues write your own history...via this web site and the many Blogs that are following the Lacrosse case.

You see Professor, if there is even the hint that young high energy white males are stuck in a hostile environment, middle age white males instinctively and intuitively focus on that environment and subconsciously prepare to take action by offering help for the youngsters. Or at least, we experience the desire to help...if the environment really is hostile.

We know the type and scope of trouble that young white males can cause themselves and others when they feel trapped, harassed, and just generally not appreciated or wanted. Especially if they can not walk away from that environment or help their friends.

Bright male student athletes will do something clever or ironic in order to feel good about themselves and their friends if they feel under attack.

Just viewing those invitations to parties during the 2005 academic year that are pictured in the Women's Center newsletter should have alerted someone at Duke to ring the bell...of caution.

You and your colleagues would have benefited greatly from even a brief consultation with the behavioral health physicians at the Duke Medical Center before your took on the young privileged white male athletes on campus, enabled the potbangers ...all the while continuing to allow the screaming about outrage.

But you didn't and here we are Professor...hopefully with you looking for your next academic appointment. I wish you well.

To use a really old phrase from the Carolinas ...Professor Holloway.

You're done Hun.

sad.gif

Posted by: Darcy Apr 18 2007, 09:51 AM
Did you notice how popular this thread has become? The number of views is on its way to 9000; that's a lot of views. The G88 members may be more than famous than they ever anticipated. Alice, thanks for setting this thread up. Nice job.

Posted by: BD78 May 24 2007, 07:12 AM
This link is retevant to the clarifiers.

Who Are the Clarifiers?
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/05/who-are-clarifiers.html

Posted by: Buck Sep 24 2007, 03:37 PM
The article below was posted on KC Johnson's blog today, in the comments section. Perhaps, it should be preserved here as well for future reference.

Three prisoners shot as they attempt to escape prison farm work squad
http://www.doc.state.nc.us/NEWS/1999/99releases/odomesca.htm

Victim of Escaped Inmate Recounts 7 Hours of Terror
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/144146/


Re: Bem Kayim Holloway

"Paper: The News & Observer
Title: Even a friend was loved
Date: July 4, 1999

The mother and daughter were driving home Monday afternoon when the father called on the cell phone. He had news, but he wanted to tell them in person, so he just asked them to hurry home.

The phone rang again. This time, it was her fiance's mother, nearly shouting with excitement. "Did you hear the news? Holloway is dead."

The car had just turned on to their street, where their new house sits at the end of a cul-de-sac. The daughter started dancing in her seat. She was driving, and her mother scolded her for goofing around.

"Mama," she said, "he's dead. Holloway is dead."

Bem Kayim Holloway, the 22-year-old man who broke into their North Raleigh home on May 20, 1998, who raped the daughter twice, who tried to slit her throat and disembowel her with a butcher knife after eight hours of torture, had been shot and killed while trying to escape from a Caledonia prison farm cotton field.

That night, the family's phone rang all evening. They watched the news on television. For the first time in more than a year, the women rested easily.

Their names and pictures have never been published; that is customary in rape cases, and they cling to what privacy remains. Still, after I called, they invited me to their home to talk; we sat out back near a pool, the mother between the father and daughter.

The daughter is 23, a veteran of therapy and physical rehabilitation. The butcher knife Holloway used sliced so deeply across her fingers that she still has not regained feeling in one hand, and doctors say, perhaps never will. Her skin is fair, and the pale scars across her throat aren't noticeable until she lifts her head. The scars on her abdomen are thicker. She points to one and says, "This is the 'I love you, Mom,' scar because I really thought when he plunged the knife in then that I was going to die, so I yelled that out to my Mom."

Her parents cry when she repeats this; their hands instinctively reach for her.

The mother's and daughter's testimony, along with ample evidence, got Holloway convicted on attempted murder, rape and robbery charges. He was sentenced to 76 to 95 years in prison. He was also faced the death penalty in pending trials for the murders of two other women - 32-year-old Peggy Carr of Wilmington and 30-year-old Julie Stehlik of Robeson County. Holloway had bragged to the daughter about the other murders, and she was to be a witness for both trials.

Now she can continue moving on in her own life, not that it is easy.

"Besides the fact that I know he can't get out and come after me, this also saves me from having to go through testifying at two murder trials," the daughter says. "But the mental closure from what he did to me? I don't think I'll ever have that."

Yet the family doesn't want to appear too joyous. There are too many other complicated emotions: disbelief that he was allowed outside (they had been told Holloway would spend 23 hours a day in a cell); anger that the state Department of Correction didn't inform them what had happened.

And, the daughter says, sadness in knowing that Holloway's parents have lost their child. She remembers seeing them in the front row when she testified and how the sight of his mother made her break down.

"I know that they are suffering a loss, too," she says.

How do you imagine Bem Holloway as anything but evil for what he did, especially after meeting these courageous women who were merely victims of his random violence?

I couldn't stop thinking about this family's love for each other, their strength and their faith, each of those things deeper than I had ever before seen - and that, too, seemed to further demonize Holloway. Then I read the transcript of a conversation he had with a friend from prison, where he bragged about the rape, talked about how he really had wanted to kill the daughter and the mother and the 14-year-old sister. How he laughed about it.

After reading that, my gut reaction was to wonder if a bullet wasn't too quick and painless.

This whole story is the sort of thing that truly tests our faith, and in so many ways. How could an attack so horrific happen to these women? How could a human being have the capacity to do such harm to others? How could a boy from a loving, upstanding family become a vicious killer?

It's so easy for the rest of us to judge. But we have to search for the humanity, don't we?

Thursday morning I went to Bem Holloway's "Service of Love" at Davie Street Presbyterian Church in Raleigh looking for just that.

I will tell you this: Bem Holloway, who was adopted at age 4, was loved. And it's clear he inflicted pain on the people who gave him that love.

The Holloway family is a well-known, respected part of this community. His mother, Karla, is a renowned African-American studies scholar at Duke University. At the memorial service, his parents and his sister clung to each other in the front row. They appeared physically crippled by suffering.

The program featured a school picture of Bem at perhaps age 10 or 11. The church was packed with people who were grieving and still trying to comprehend what in the world led Bem Holloway to devolve from this smiling kid to a rapist, a murderer, and finally, at 22, this pile of ashes contained in a simple wooden box before them. His victims were never mentioned, yet I'd bet there wasn't a person there who didn't think of them, too.

Nobody talked about what Bem Holloway became. What was there to say? The service was for the living.

Pastor Byron Wade officiated, and the Rev. Dr. Maurice Wallace of New Red Mountain Baptist Church in Rougemont preached a sermon about the power of hope in a season of despair.

He quoted another preacher, a fictional character from James Baldwin's novel "Another Country."

This preacher, too, he said, was trying to reach people whose hearts were inconsolable.

He beseeched them to let not their hearts become bitter. "The world is so bitter already. We must be better than the world."

How those words resonated. The family of survivors who shared their story is proof.

The Holloway family, too, is trying to maintain faith in the face of complete confusion and despair. Theirs is a different road, also difficult.

If these two families can try to be better than the world, shouldn't the rest of us at least try? "

Posted by: alice Sep 26 2007, 01:10 PM
From KC Johnson' blog:

“If I publish something like this . . . my voice won’t count for much in my world.”

Group of 88 member Susan Thorne, explaining why she could not fulfill her commitment to a lacrosse player to publish a statement of regret about signing the Group of 88’s ad—and instead signed the January 2007 “clarifying” statement, whose signatories expressly refused to apologize for the Group of 88’s ad.

Posted by: Zola Oct 4 2007, 11:50 AM
Does Professor Emeritus Ole Holsti think Professor Karla Holloway should apologize for her parenting? Why not? If Holsti thinks lacrosse players’ parents owe us an apology surely Holloway and so many other parents owe the same.

Speaking of parents owing an apology, where does one stop?
http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?showtopic=4&view=findpost&p=13520711

Posted by: alice Oct 7 2007, 06:10 PM
One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies
http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v53/i24/24a01001.htm
Chronicle of Higher Education
(some may not have subscription to this publication so I am posting here)

Arlie Petters, a group of 88 member, was quoted in above article as follows.

Math professor Arlie Petters said, “Whenever something causes undue pain to people, then of course that isn’t something I would want to be a part of.”

Thank you Professor Petters.

Posted by: alice Oct 12 2007, 02:28 PM
On October 10, 2007 Kerry Haynie commented in The Chronicle as follows:
(1:45pm EST post on 10/10/07)
Link: http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=fd7aa06b-ddaf-487b-8c5d-aa7dea6a9493

As a member of the Lacrosse ad hoc Review Committee, I join with Professors Coleman and Kasibhatla in their criticism of the way in which KC Johnson has mischaracterized our committee's report. I have not read the Taylor and Johnson book, but I have seen assertions about our report by Taylor and Johnson in newspapers, and I've seen statements about the report by Johnson posted on his blog. Johnson has made statements that give a misleading and inaccurate view of what the report concludes. Moreover, contrary to the impression one gets from reading various comments from Johnson, in which he selectively quotes from our report, the committee's investigation and deliberations had NOTHING to do with the LAX criminal case. Any and all judgments we reached were about the team's behavior and conduct as members of the Duke community PRIOR to the night of the incident that gave rise to the criminal case. Our report cannot and should not be seen as a commentary on anything that happened on that now infamous and tragic evening. We neither exonerated nor condemned anybody for anything that was alleged to have happened that night.

Our report is a public document and can be read by anyone in its entirety, without selective quoting and without interrupting commentary by Taylor and Johnson.

Finally, all of you who are inclined to send me nasty, racist, and or vile anonymous emails, do not send them. I will do as my colleagues have done and simply delete them. KC and Stuart, as usual, I will not respond to you either.

Kerry L. Haynie

Posted by: Darcy Oct 13 2007, 01:28 PM
These comments were published in the Chronicle by Tortmaster on October 13, 2007. I am preserving them here for easy access in the future. Here is the link to the original posting: http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=dcb66275-be5d-4d54-9e0e-cc5e4c5710c0&startRow=51

Tortmaster
posted 10/13/07 @ 2:31 AM EST

Let's look at the Listening Ad, but first let's look at it in context. It was drafted mere days after the alleged rape became public knowledge. Was it rash to jump on a bandwagon that was only 12 days old?

Keep in mind that even eventually disbarred attorney Mike Nifong would not indict anyone for the alleged crime until 12 days AFTER the Listening ad was published. Any conclusions about a "social disaster" did not even have enough time to become properly gossip-based yet.

There were the protests, including the "castrate" banner, the potbangers marching up Buchanan Boulevard, and, of course, the wanted posters depicting the faces of the lax players. Not pictures of the eventually-indicted players, but pictures of all the players.

The context includes the fact that local media had begun to focus on the Lacrosse team. A week before the Listening ad came out in the student newspaper, the News&Observer ran an editorial by Ruth Sheehan presuming guilt and presuming a lacrosse "wall of silence," with her "we know you know" piece.

The context also includes the fact that the Listening ad's author, Wahneema Lubiano, chose to publish it in the school's newspaper. What better way to cause harm to students than publish something about them in the student's own newspaper? Who better to publish it than gobs of faculty and whole university departments and programs?

The context also includes other editorials written by the Gang of 88, including the infamous one by Professor Chafe with the Emmett Till comparison. He wrote the following in the Duke Chronicle a week before the Listening Ad:

"Sex and race have been intertwined since the beginning of American history. They remain so today, throughout America and here at Duke. The events that occurred on Buchanan Boulevard two weeks ago are part of a deep and troubling history."

But Lubiano also had an editorial published in the News&Observer in which she wrote in May 2006:

"An anger is surfacing against aspects of everyday life at Duke, an anger that is playing out in the aftermath of the accusations against the lacrosse team and responses to those accusations. The changes at Duke that critics want to see are coming more sharply into view as a result of struggle in this moment of spectacle."

The Listening ad author wrote that "[a]n anger is surfacing ... in the aftermath of the ... accusations against the lacrosse team ...." She wrote this in a paper with a printing of 167,891 copies each weekday in the Raleigh-Durham area.

The context also includes what the author of the Listening ad thought of the ad herself. As reported by ESPN, "Lubiano knew some would see the ad as a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team."

The context of the "Listening ad" included some lacrosse students sleeping in cars to avoid public consternation or worse, staying over at the homes of anonymous friends or even leaving the state.

On March 30, 2006, a few days before the publication of the Listening ad, the News&Observer printed a story which included the following subheading and copy:

TENSION BUILDS

The case, which erupted last week when police took DNA from all but one member of the team, heightened tensions between the city and Duke, a private university sometimes accused of walling itself off from a community with blue-collar roots.

The incident has sparked outrage on and off campus about classism, racism and sexual violence. The woman, an N.C. Central University student and employee of an escort service hired for the party, is black; she told authorities that her attackers were white....

Frustration over Duke's response continued Wednesday.

Wednesday's Take Back the Night rally, planned months ago, drew nearly a thousand people. Students and residents walked nearly a mile from East Campus to the landmark chapel on West Campus, chanting, 'Hey, hey, ho, ho, all rape has got to go.'

Ignacio Adriasola, an art history graduate student, had a sign taped to his shirt: 'It isn't what Duke has, but what it lax,' using the shorthand word for lacrosse.

Jean Leonard, Duke's sexual assault support services coordinator, welcomed rally participants from Duke, NCCU and Durham Technical Community College. TV trucks from national media outlets rumbled nearby. 'Tonight is about more than a great media story that the nation has great interest in,' Leonard said. 'Tonight is more about healing.'


(capitalization of subheading added).

As you can see, the context included an atmosphere of heightened worry; Duke administrative staff and students alike were on the record presuming guilt. Tension was building. The national media had arrived at last! This was all BEFORE Lubiano published the "Listening ad."

Approximately a week prior to the Listening ad, the students' lawyers were already concerned about prejudicial pretrial publicity. A March 30, 2006 News&Observer article had the following headline: "Lacrosse players' lawyers object."

Eventually, Mike Nifong is disbarred, in part, for his prejudicial pretrial public statements, and the defense lawyers cite Duke faculty in their Motion to Change Venue. Of course, such a motion is filed when a party believes that it cannot receive a fair trial in that particular venue.

On the "Diverse" Education website, it is posted:

"The [Listening] advertisement gained additional prominence when, in the fall, the defense attorney for the lacrosse players requested a change of venue, citing the advertisement as evidence of Duke faculty bias against the players."

About a week before the publication of the "Listening ad," every literate person in Durham (and some who just watched television news) knew that the BIG DAY was approaching. Mike Nifong had publicly said that DNA results for the case would be available on or about April 10, 2006. On April 1, 2006, the N&O printed an article proclaiming:

"District Attorney Mike Nifong said Friday that no charges will be filed in the investigation of a report of rape at a Duke University lacrosse party until at least the WEEK OF APRIL 10. He also said he won't release DNA results that had been expected next week.

The tests, which are comparing the DNA of 46 lacrosse players with samples taken from the accuser as well as from towels, rags and rugs in the house where the party was held, COULD BE COMPLETED NEXT WEEK, Nifong said."


(emphasis added)

Now, anybody riding the backs of presumptively innocent students for his or her political agenda would know that APRIL 10 was an important day. If the DNA came back negative, the sane response would be a dismissal of claims (especially given the alleged 30-minute violent gangrape by 3 Division I athletes).

In other words, if hay were to be made, it had better be harvested fast. In a mass e-mail to other professors, Lubiano directed her colleagues to review the Listening ad quickly, sign on and hurry up: "We're trying for Thursday (04/05) if we can do it; if not, then next Monday (04/10)."

Thus, not only does it appear that Lubiano whipped up the "Listening ad" in record time, she did so as quickly as possible in case the boys were ACTUALLY FOUND TO BE INNOCENT.

The best context of all, of course, is the author's interpretation of her own handiwork. In this case, Lubiano unequivocally stated in her e-mail to colleagues that,

"African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle ABOUT THE LACROSSE TEAM INCIDENT." (emphasis added).

So, it seems that Lubiano's admission against interest proves that the Listening ad was about "the lacrosse team incident." But she went further and signed up not just 87 other colleagues, but also whole university programs and departments, including the following:

Duke University's African-American Studies
Duke University's Romance Studies
Duke University's Social & Health Sciences
Duke University's Franklin Humanities Institute
Duke University's Critical Studies Program
Duke University's Art Department
Duke University's Art History Department
Duke University's Latin American Studies
Duke University's Center for Documentary Studies
Duke University's Women's Studies Program
Duke University's Program in Education
Duke University's European Studies Program

The "Listening ad," taken in context, heightened tensions on campus, aligned a huge number of professors, departments and programs against the lacrosse players, was raised in a Motion to Change Venue to protect the students and joined such other recent disparaging editorials as Sheehan's and Chafe's.

To say the ad was not about the lax hoax is to ignore the ad's author, the timing of its publication, and even the first line of the ad. For those who have not seen the "Listening ad," it can be found at Johnsville.blogspot.com.

At the top of this "PAID ADVERTISEMENT," it provides: "Regardless of the results of the police investigation ...." This is stated without previous mention of any event deserving of a "police investigation." The author was obviously referring to the Duke hoax investigation.

In the same paragraph, Lubiano describes "this moment's extraorinary spotlight." Again, an obvious reference to the Duke rape hoax.

The next paragraph, which is just one sentence, claims that "[I]t is a disaster nonetheless." The author appears to be describing BOTH what happened at 610 Buchanan and other perceived acts of racism at Duke (and elsewhere).

The next one-sentence paragraph states that "[t]hese students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves."

THAT is a prejudgment. The words used were "WHAT HAPPENED to this young woman ...." The author could have used words such as "what was alleged to have happened." Lubiano mentioned in her e-mail that she had made drafts of the piece, so she had time to edit the language. It is also instructive to note that the Listening ad sets an early emphasis on "shouting."

The next paragraph appears to be a quote, but there are no quotation marks or attribution. This is a continuing problem in the advertisement. "We want the absence of terror.... Terror robs you of language and you need language for the healing to begin." As stated previously, the author was obviously discussing the hoaxed rape allegations and generic perceived racism. Which would the reader perceive as more likely deserving of actual "terror"?

The next paragraph again appears to be a quotation mark-less quote, but this is attributed to the Independent (but no particular speaker). Significantly, this quote appeared approximately 3 days after the Duke rape hoax became public knowledge: "This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists ... It's part of the experience." (ellipses in original).

The author is apparently conveying that rape (or is it just the generic perceived racism) is as abundant as ipods about campus. Since I am an American, I read the ad left to right and top to bottom, the context leads me to believe that rape may be as prevalent as fast food at Duke.

After three unattributed apparent quotes, there is this: "... I am only comfortable talking about THIS EVENT in my room with close friends. I am actually afraid to even bring it up in public. But worse, I wonder now about everything.... If SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO ME ...." (emphasis added).

What do you think "this event" means? The Duke hoax, of course. No other specific event is alluded to in the least. Also, consider what the apparent quotation implies: The speaker has nothing to fear if there is just an investigation of students who are presumed innocent, but she does have something to fear "if something like this happens" to her. Something like what? A rape, of course, a prejudged, juried and executed rape.

After another unattributed quote, there is, in the center of the Listening ad, in giant eye-catching print, "WHAT DOES A SOCIAL DISASTER SOUND LIKE?"

After two quotes attributed only to the Independent (and not a person), the ad goes on to provide: "... no one is really talking about how to keep the YOUNG WOMAN herself central to this conversation, how to keep her humanity before us ... she doesn't seem to be visible in this. Not for the university, not for us." (emphasis added).

It seems strange to me that everyone quoted by Lubiano was a poet. In a poetic way, the author inserted this "quote" in the ad to apparently get the university to support the "invisible" woman and not the university's students.

The next unattributed "quote" also seems to be egging on the University and the community to strive to achieve greater success in arresting someone. Consider how this "quote" attempts to elicit action while it, at the same time, prejudges the case and prejudices the lacrosse players:

"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." (emphasis added).

"What has happened" refers to the Duke lacrosse hoax, and the author appears to be saying, that he or she wants arrests now! The "different attention" is the lock-up of the offenders. Finally, the use of the "so upscale" language prejudices the boys in a classist way.

The next unattributed "quote" again appears to egg on the university to take action about the Duke rape hoax. The "quote" provides:

"And this is what I'm thinking right now - Duke isn't really responding to THIS. Not really. And THIS, what HAS HAPPENED, IS A DISASTER. THIS IS A SOCIAL DISASTER." (emphasis mine except last sentence).

Use of the word "this," of course, refers to the Duke rape hoax. So do the words "what has happened." Even a feeble-minded person would conclude that an investigation is not a disaster, but a rape would be. "This" rape "happened." That is a prejudgment.

The remaining substantive portions of the "Listening ad" provide additional clues as to the motivation behind it, including use of the date "March 13th," which could only reference the date of the fake gangrape.

Lubiano notes at the bottom that "[t]his ad, printed in the most easily seen venue on campus, is just one way for us to say that we're hearing what our students are saying."

This raises a couple of issues in my mind: (1) it is a "Paid Advertisement," which means that faculty felt it was so important that they spent their own money on it; and (2) the implication is that entire departments and programs at Duke University also paid for the advertisement, which as described above prejudged the students as guilty of "this" and "what happened."

Then, Lubiano goes on to write the following: "We're turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait."

- "[T]urning up the volume" is akin to the "shouting" described earlier in the ad. In context, this is at a time when the local and national media have already turned up the volume, when potbangers and 1,000-person domestic violence protest marches were roaming Durham.

- "[T]urning up the volume" and "shouting" do not seem to be the best way for university professors to achieve a measured response or dialogue.

- "[I]n a moment" again refers to the fake rape and its warm afterglow.

- "[I]n a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait" refers to waiting on due process and court hearings. Lubiano and the Gang of 88 are telling their students NOT to wait for due process. Join a lynch mob, see the world.

Next, the Gang of 88 compliment the potbangers and protesters, leaflet spammers, wanted poster hangers, castrate banner holders (one for each side of that HUGE banner) with this: "To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for NOT WAITING and for making yourselves heard." (emphasis added).

- Lubiano and the Gang of 88 are lucky some crackpot did not take "individual[]" action.

-"[T]hank you for NOT WAITING" is positive reinforcement for judgment rushing and the perceived university-sanctioned elimination of due process.

Finally, the "Listening ad" concludes with a list of all the university departments and programs aligned against the lacrosse students. I can just imagine a lacrosse player reading the ad and thinking, "We didn't do it, but the African & African-American Studies Program, the Psychology Department and even the Franklin Humanities Institute believe we did, and they want us arrested."

A website address is given because of "space limitations" in listing all of the faculty signatories, which lends weight (in numbers) to the charges and instructions contained in the ad.

My problems with the "Listening ad," which are many and varied, do not include the allegation that the ad's author is dumb. Far from that, I think the ad was well-crafted to tacitly, yet obviously, refer to the rape as basically well-established fact.

It was also surgically designed to extract as much marrow as possible from the bones of Duke University. The Gang of 88 chose that moment to press an advantage and "negotiate" their demands with the university. Some of my problems with the "Listening ad" include the following:

A. Using what was essentially gossip (triple hearsay at best) to stir up an already tense situation.

B. Using this gossip to extract demands from the University.

C. Providing negative pre-trial publicity against their own students.

D. Failing to reflect, soberly, on the ramifications of their actions (lynching their own students)(ignoring due process)(the propriety of basing demands on gossip).

E. Implying, in a crafty way, that it was the institutional belief of a large faction in the University that rushing to judgment was condoned.

F. Implying, in a careful way, that it was the institutional belief of a large faction in the University that a rational approach to days-old gossip was "making collective noise" rather than waiting to allow due process protections to attach.

G. The shoddy scholarship involved.

H. Attacking and attempting to alienate 46 of their own students.

I. Painting themselves into such a corner that they could not later apologize and acknowledge their misdeeds.

J. Providing intellectual support to a false prosecution.

K. Prejudging and convicting their innocent students.

L. Compounding their error with a subsequent "Clarifying Statement," editorials, letters to the editor, articles, "Shut Up and Teach" forums, etc.

M. Bringing the University into disrepute.

_________________

Based upon their power play, the Gang of 88 were able to extract a number of concessions from Duke, including, among other things, the elevation of the African & African-American Studies Department, the appointment of a Diversity & Equity Officer, numerous committee investigations, including the infamous Campus Culture Initiative, various benefits for faculty and students involved in the protests or "Listening ad" and, most significantly, a chilling of speech on campus, causing other professors and administrators to refrain from denouncing the obvious hoax (and the actions of the 88).

These are my opinions only. MOO! Gregory

Posted by: BD78 Oct 17 2007, 04:21 PM
BD55, forgive me for duplicating your link from the General Discussions thread, but it so funny that it belongs here as well.

Mass suicide at Duke – Sep 4, 2007 Carbolic Smoke Ball
http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/duke.html

Posted by: alice Oct 20 2007, 09:16 AM
Reflections on the Piot Principles - Oct 20, KC Johnson
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/10/reflections-on-piot-principles.html

An excerpt from above post:

“Such a claim, of course, strains credulity. It asserts that 88 Duke faculty members—who included more than a dozen professors of English or Literature—were incapable of writing a sentence stating that they only referred to one specific protest; and months later, when many of the same people signed the “clarifying” ad, remained incapable of doing so. It also ignores that at least two Group members (Susan Thorne and Alberto Moreiras) admitted, in writing, that the wording of the ad did thank all of the anti-lacrosse protesters.”

Posted by: Epikostes Oct 20 2007, 06:51 PM
This is a little dated but still quite funny:

Majority Of Duke's 'Gang Of 88' Suffering From Acute Depression Since Lacrosse Players' Acquittal
Carbolic Smoke Ball - June 25, 2007
http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/dukes-gang-of-88-who-took-out-ad.html

Posted by: Emily Brontë Nov 2 2007, 11:28 AM
Alice, this should also be incorporated into the thread: a call from DCU to the group of 88 professors to apologize. I doubt very much that they will comply but recording the request would be useful.

Click on the link below to see a pdf version of the ad. The online version of the Chronicle does not include paid advertisements.

Posted by: alice Nov 3 2007, 08:06 AM
The link below was sent to me recently by another member of this board. It is interesting enough to post here. The initial post on the Chronicle had a format problem, so I am recreating it below. To read the rest of the discussion please use the link.

Duke Professor Ariel Dorfman abuses power and abilities
Jan 1, 2007 – The Chronicle Message Board (Duke Lacrosse Investigation)
http://www.dukechronicle.com/messageboard/index.cfm?event=viewtopic&umessage_id=ccbfda12-d856-4265-afcc-5c625952137b

Posted by Perez on.line (Jan 23, 2007 3:37pm)

After reading the new letter posted by the concerned "88" professors at Duke University, I was shocked and dismayed to find Ariel Dorfman's name on this document that cries out about its misinterpretation. Let's analyze the tragedy of this new letter.

But first let's talk about why I can't believe Ariel Dorfman signed it. Dorfman is an internationally known writer, playwright, and professor at Duke University. Born in Argentina, he was exiled from Chile following the military coup of September 11th, 1973. His work is inextricably tied to General Augusto Pinochet. In a sense, the bloody regime of Pinochet created Dorfman the writer, this writer who has devoted his life to depicting the horrors of tyranny and the agony of exile.

Dorfman contributes regularly to publications worldwide as a commentator and journalist. He is the author of numerous books of literary and cultural criticism. He has won awards for his poetry and plays. In other words, Dorfman has mastered the written word. He knows the power of it. He writes about the power of it. He uses the power of it to make change for the good. He writes of the "perilous quest for literary justice."

And so it is Dorfman, above most human beings, who should recognize the danger of rhetoric - of this document by the 88 - that although did not overtly accuse the lacrosse players, did set a stage for condemnation and judgment. That set a set a stage to make someone pay, not for the specific incident, but for the slippery and big, baggy monsters that are racism and sexism. On this stage set by the 88, the document in its own subtle way tried and hung these lacrosse players when the masses were seething and ranting and raving for payback, for someone's head. When the public was seething and ranting and raving for someone to pay before any of the facts came to light. This new document by the 88 and their refusal to change their approach says to the world - "These lacrosse-playing students may not be guilty, but we'll sacrifice them to the greater good - to deal with racism and injustice."

I will admit that when I first heard about the case, I wanted these upper-middle class privileged white males to pay. Not for the crime they were accused of. But for being privileged. For being, to me, the stereotype of all that is wrong in America. For having opportunities that I know that I will never ever have. For the unfairness of being poor. For the struggle of being Hispanic. But those thoughts that I harbored are dangerous and they are wrong. And it doesn't take getting a PhD to know that I was wrong. In his writing, Dorfman often talks about justice, about freedom of the human spirit, about fighting injustice. For him to sign this damning document negates his entire career up until this point. In a recent Washington Post column, Dorfman writes about meeting a torture victim from Chile. Dorfman demands that the public "take a good hard look at him before anyone dare maintain that, to save lives, it might be necessary to inflict unbearable pain on a fellow human being."

He goes on to write "Are we so morally sick, so deaf and dumb and blind, that we do not understand this? Are we so fearful, so in love with our own security and steeped in our own pain, that we are really willing to let people be tortured in the name of America?" What kind of pain has been inflicted on the lives of these students who have not been proven guilty? No, they have not been literally tortured. But their lives have been irreparably damaged. All in the name of paying for the evils of racism and sexism. And if these athletes are found guilty, then maybe you can say they deserve what they get. But they have not been tried as of yet.

So Dorfman is wrong to pass judgment in any form, either overtly or with divine subtlety. And that goes not only for Dorfman, but for all of these Duke professors who signed it. These doctors at Duke are masters of rhetoric. No one better understands the power of what rhetoric can do and for them to now claim, "Oh my - we had no idea that our published document would be taken the wrong way." is absolutely preposterous. These are professors who have devoted their lives to the written word - who know that once the spoken or written word has been released in the universe that it takes a life of its own, never to be controlled by its author(s) again. And because they have this knowledge, they have an incredible responsibility and accountability for what this document created when they released it on the world during this chaotic and insane time. They cobbled these quotes together with no thought about the consequences other than to promote their own agenda. It's they they got together in the Ivory Tower and said, "Ah, dear doctors, let us type up and sprinkle down Word documents on the masses and incite their deepest fears and dredge up their deepest pain - and let's do it quickly while we have some lacrosse players to focus it on."

I resent your manipulation particularly when so many of you sit inside the walls of Duke with no idea who the suffering people really are or what their struggle is. You work on theory. You know little of praxis. And while that works at Duke, it doesn't work in a court of law. Only in your kangaroo court. What smacks more of tyranny than these irresponsible actions?

It is a deep deep shame to me to see the names of these people whose work I have admired and respected for so many years do something so very irresponsible. They should know better. Shame, shame on you.

Angela Perez
Master's Degree-Liberal Studies
Duke University '04

Responses to this post are here:
http://www.dukechronicle.com/messageboard/index.cfm?event=viewtopic&umessage_id=ccbfda12-d856-4265-afcc-5c625952137b

Posted by: BD78 Nov 29 2007, 09:29 AM
Is this real or a joke?

http://www.sodahead.com/poll/28878/

Posted by: Zola Nov 29 2007, 06:09 PM
QUOTE (BD78 @ Nov 29 2007, 09:29 AM)
Is this real or a joke?

http://www.sodahead.com/poll/28878/

Here is the answer to your question, sort of...

Fraudulent Posting?
http://ethicalduke.blogspot.com/2007/11/back-in-businessfraudulent-posting.html

Posted by: Buck Apr 28 2008, 11:29 AM
Alice, I saw this email in the comments section of DiW a few days ago. You may wish to add it to your matrix (if you are still updating it).

From comments section of DiW:
-------------------------------------
On 2/2/08, Prof. Kerry Haynie said that the email he sent to Prof. Baldwin was as follows:

--- begin quote --

Add to Kerry Haynie
Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:55 AM -0400
From: klhaynie@duke.edu
To: steven.baldwin@duke.edu
Subject: Chronicle Editorial

Dear Steven,

I read with amusement your opinion column in today’s Chronicle. Frankly, I found it to be insulting and out of the normal bounds of both civil and academic discourse. I hope the students that you say you love so much don’t take this lesson in hypocrisy from you. They deserve a better model than this. On the one hand you criticize some unnamed faculty for characterizing students in a pejorative manner, and then you speak of tarring and feathering and running folk out of town on a rail. You ask the faculty to speak their minds and to do what they think is right, but what you seem to really want is for us to do these things only if and when we agree with you. It is this attitude that has no place in the academy, where the free expression of ideas, thoughts and beliefs should be cherished and protected. And you even had the nerve to include a thinly veiled threat of legal action in response to some alleged slander. Steven, it is you who should be ashamed.

Are you the one with the tar and feathers? I can be found at the address below and I am usually on campus everyday. And you should know that if I ever leave Duke it will be on my terms and not because you or anybody else wants to see me go on a rail.

Kerry

Kerry L. Haynie
Associate Professor and
Associate Chair
Co-Director
Center for the Study of Race,
Ethnicity, and Gender in the Social Sciences
Department of Political Science
Duke University

Posted by: Epikostes May 20 2008, 10:02 AM
I had made a copy of this exchange on The Chronicle's discussion board before it was taken down. It involves G89 member Kenneth Surin. I post it here to complete the record on Surin's views.

From The Chronicle's lax case discussion board:
Kenneth Surin
posted 1/29/08 @ 10:43 AM EST
Kenneth Surin

Roper, a legal technicality. Finnerty's charge was not dismissed, instead the guilty verdict was 'vacated', which is quite different. When a verdict is vacated, the judge, after a stipulated period of good behavior on the part of the guilty party, orders that the guilty verdict no longer remain on the public record(only law enforcement agencies will have access to it). This is certainly not the same as overturning a verdict because the original verdict still stands. Also, throwing an air punch is part of the legal definition of 'assault'.

While no members of the lacrosse team were arrested in any public affray, the Coleman Report's extensive investigation of criminal proceedings involving the team showed the following: robbing a pizza deliverer, illegal entry of another student's room, failure to show up for legal proceedings, as well as the Finnerty assault and a number of other misdemeanors.

TruthSeeker
posted 1/29/08 @ 1:54 PM EST
Well, so this time, instead of a phony black prostitute falsely accusing three men of rape in the applause of Wahneema Lubiano, William Chafe, Karla Holloway, Cathy Davidson, Dick Brodhead, John Burness, the Black Panthers and the rest of the gang, we have black athletes apparently caught in the act of hitting with beer bottles the heads of girls who happened to be in the bar.

I can envisage the next Ad signed by African & African American Studies: Romance Studies; Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanities Institute; Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; Asian & African Languages and Literature; Women's Studies; Latino/a Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies.

Given David Graham's abysmal performance at the helm of The Chronicle, since he took over from his incomparably worthier predecessors, I don't see why he wouldn't publish the following ad.

------------

We are listening to our students. 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 black-on-white racism and violence, who see illuminated in this moment's extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday. They know that it isn't just Duke, it isn't everybody, and it isn't just individuals making this disaster.

But it is a disaster nonetheless.

These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this man and to themselves.

. . .We want the absence of terror. But we don't really know what that means . . . We can't think. That's why we're so silent; we can't think about what's on the other side of this. Terror robs you of language and you need language for the healing to begin.

This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with threatening classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists....It's part of the experience.

If it turns out that the aggressors are guilty, I want them in prison. But this will only bring resolution to this case and not the bigger problem. This is much bigger than that and sentencing them will not solve the problem. I want the administration to acknowledge what is going on and how bad it is.

Being a small, Asian man, it's hard to walk anywhere at night, and not have a mugger slowly drive by me.

Everything seems up for grabs--I am only comfortable talking about this event in my room with close friends. I am actually afraid to even bring it up in public. But worse, I wonder now about everything. . . . If something like this happens to
me . . . What would be used against me--a gun, a bat, a beer bottle?


What Does A Social Disaster Sound Like

. . . all you heard was "students who aren't black just complain all the time, all you do is complain and be racists" And whenever we try to explain why we're offended, it's pushed back on us. Just the phrase "white privilege": the blame is always put on us.

. . . no one is really talking about how to keep the victims, assaulted by some of Brodhead's proteges, central to this conversation, how to keep his humanity before us . . . the victims don't seem to be visible in this. Not for the university, not for us.


And this is what I'm thinking right now – Duke isn't really responding to this. Not really. And this, what has happened, is a disaster. This is a social disaster.

The students know that the disaster didn't begin with this felony and won't end with what the police say or the court decides. Like all disasters, this one has a history. And what lies beneath what we're hearing from our students are questions about the future. This ad, printed in the most easily seen venue on campus, is just one way for us to say that we're hearing what our students are saying. We're turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and to the protesters making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.

Fearful Student
posted 1/29/08 @ 2:51 PM EST
To this list, one should add the second statement's signatories. Among them, professor Kenneth Surin. This despicable man has publicly demeaned us students. He sarcastically implied that us athlete students are intellectually unable to raise to the exalted standards of his courses. "I do not give quizzes . . . I give very hard reading."

Kenneth Surin is the man who wrote the despicable words: "in no way can condemnation of this persistent pattern of lacrosse team misbehavior be a problem for any ethically upright member of the community." Indeed, in his mind, "The Duke lacrosse team cannot be left off the hook for any responsibility for all the surrounding behavioral conditions and transgressions which, even if one were not a philosophical or religious determinist, made that March 2006 disaster virtually inevitable."

Kenneth Surin's talking about being "ethically upright" is somehow similar to Auschwitz kapos talking about the virtues of solidarity.

To those who would question why I don't give my real name. It's very simple, really, as long as Duke University does not reinforce its own policies regarding rogue professors bullying and grade-retaliating against their own students.

Mr. Surin's present efforts to gather some extremely thin record of alleged felonies marring the reputation of Duke student athletes emanates the stink of rancorous defeat. It's human nature, I guess, but this exposure of gut-level hatred, from a professor who is also being paid from my own tuition money.... again, it's despicable, and speaks extremely lowly not only of "professor" Surin, but also of the Brodhead administration which empowers such unconscionable behavior. For shame.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)