Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Call for Review of Duke's Faculty Response

Professor KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr, co-authors of Until Proven Innocent, have called for a review of the Faculty response in the Duke Lacrosse case. In a letter to the Chronicle they responded to recent criticism by Professor Coleman.

"It puzzles us that professors James Coleman and Prasad Kasibhatla used the occasion of criticism directed toward President Richard Brodhead's apology to condemn our work on the lacrosse case-since the only one of us to comment publicly on the remarks (KC Johnson) praised the president for "a powerful and emotional address, one that touched on several important points in an impressive fashion."

It equally puzzles us that the duo attacked our characterization of the Coleman Committee report. One or both of us have given similar characterizations of the report, in print, no fewer than 23 times since May 2, 2006. Never did Professor Coleman (with whom we have spoken or e-mailed on multiple occasions) challenge our description, much less in the harsh tone employed in the Chronicle letter. Since our book directly quotes from the report's section dealing with the lacrosse players' alcohol-related arrests, it seems peculiar to suggest we overlooked this point.

And while we are not surprised to receive criticism from defenders of the academic status quo, it seems unusual to portray a book with more than 1,000 sourcenotes as based on a "tragic rush to judgment" regarding faculty activists' behavior. Professors Coleman and Kasibhatla presented no specific evidence to support their claim, but we share their commitment that all facts, positive and negative, be revealed. Therefore, we invite them to join us in calling for a comprehensive review, modeled on the Coleman Committee's balanced and commendable investigation of the lacrosse team, of the faculty's response to the lacrosse case." Chronicle

KC Johnson
Co-author, "Until Proven Innocent""Durham-in-Wonderland" blog

Stuart Taylor
Co-author, "Until Proven Innocent"

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Drudge has the video of Whoopi Goldberg this morning on The View demanding Al Sharpton apologize to the Duke LAX for "putting them through Hell." Great viewing~

Debrah said...

Go over to the Chronicle and read the horrific letter sent in response to this by one of the Faculty Gang of 88.

Of course, he/she didn't sign their name.

Carolyn said...

The Gang listening to anybody except itself? Oh, THAT will be the day!

But if that day ever comes, I will strap on my ice skates because it would mean Hell has just frozen over!

Anonymous said...

Why does anyone care about the musings of the mediocrity Coleman?

He is a lightweight--100% pure affirmative action.

God, isn't America a wonderful place!

scott said...

Once again, Johnson and Taylor have shown themselves to be not only the intellectual superiors, but also superior gentlemen (as that term was used prior to the coarseness that has invaded the modern age) to members of the Duke faculty.

Attention Duke -- you still are not exhibiting a fundamental understanding of "The First Law of Digging Holes" (and the corrective action to take upon finding oneself in one). Aside from a limited number of examples to the contrary, Duke University employees have shown a remarkable capacity to engage in what to most people would be extremely embarrassing behavior since March 13, 2006.

Anonymous said...

Liestoppers:

"we invite them to join us in calling for a comprehensive review,"

Good luck to KC and Stuart on receiving a response.

Coleman was flipped. He is in no position to flip again. Kasibhatla has long since left the reservation.

KC and Stuart are employing a type of Chinese torture to the Duke professors. By highlighting the professors' own lack of literary standards, KC and Stuart have delivered a fatal blow to the professors' academic legitimacy.

Both men know thay have been publicly humiliated.

Ken
Dallas

Anonymous said...

Debrah, I know that you don't particularly do well at examining any sort of theory or explanation other than the first that commends itself to you. But please don't tell me that it's the obvious satire of "Faculty" at 12:23 EST here that you're referring to as a "horrific letter sent in response to this by one of the Faculty Gang of 88" who "didn't sign their name"? It should have been obvious at least by the line "What do you think we are, drunken sophomores?" -- if not far earlier -- that the writer of the letter is not a member of the Gang of 88 but someone satirizing the Gang of 88's double standards, including an insistence on treating others as they themselves would never endure being treated.

The piece sparkles as satire. Please, please, don't turn it into a straw man for the Gang of 88. It just makes us all look bad.

Anonymous said...

A comprehensive review - don't hold your breath.
It assumes leadership exists at Duke University.

Anonymous said...

5.00

Debrah is incredibly stupid--and a hypocrite. Check out her early posts on DIW relating to Coleman. She was in love with him, dubbing Coleman 1 of the heroes of the hoax.

I'd guess that Debrah is living off a nice inheritance and a disability check for some mental illness.

Jim in San Diego said...

I would like to have further comment from Professor Coleman about his critique of K.C., Stuart Taylor, and UPG. I have read from afar Professor Coleman's steadfast stand for due process, at a time it was not popular to make that stand (actually, it does not appear to be popular to stand for due process at Duke, even today).

The language of the Coleman/Khasibatla letter does not sound like anything Professor Coleman has written before. It sounds like a letter written by an enabler, who persuaded Professor Coleman to sign on.

Professor Coleman, I think, should be shielded from peer pressure by his own character and the tiny little fact he was right, and the enablers were wrong. If he has succumbed to peer pressure at Duke at this point, that is tragic. It implies a much worse situation within the Duke faculty and administration than we have imagined to date

Debrah said...

TO 5:41PM--

Poor, poor bipolar Polanski.

You're banned from every place you go...while spreading your filth.

Try not to project the mental problems from which we all know you suffer.

The moderator will, no doubt, ban you here for your vulgarity on the other threads.

Some say satire...while others say pure insight into the 88 and their janissaries.

I appreciate all the attention; however, I stay away from self-proclaimed bipolars. Perhaps you can get a date with CGM.

Roy Cooper says she shares your problems.

LOL!

Debrah said...

To clear up the falsehoods on this thread.

I never heaped praise on Coleman. From the start, I posted on DIW that he was in the position to have done much more within the administration. He's a law professor (for G/d's sake) and he and Erwin Chemerinsky could have exerted much more influence.

I was even attacked because I questioned why Coleman was so tepid.

The 5:41 poster is a troll whom KC had to ban.

Late in the case, I came to appreciate more KC's view of Coleman and I called him a gentleman who tried to be fair.

Now that he seems to be doing a 180, I also find that tragic.......and I have personally corresponded with him to tell him my concerns. His reply to me was polite, but it shows a man who has done a 180...AFTER receiving so much praise from KC and Stuart.

The trolls on these blogs do nothing but devalue the conversation.

Anonymous said...

Debrah

I'm the so-called troll, and I know who Polanski is. I'm neither the real Polanski nor his many imitators.

Debbie, you have many enemies.

Debrah said...

TO 8:29 PM--

Yes, I have never fully appreciated the magnitude of my own power.

Thanks, moron.

You're the same old "anonymous" troll.

(And this "Debbie" crap is so "seventies".)

Anonymous said...

And Debrah brings her diatribe to LS since DIW is winding down.What a douche

jim2 said...

I agree with an earlier poster. This is simply another clear violation of the First Rule of Holes.

Debrah said...

TO 5:00 PM--

Get out from underneath "anonymous" and we'll talk.

The Haynie letter confirms the veracity of the "faculty" letter...satire or ignorant rant.

The second "faculty" letter was decidely low-rent. Not as much effort put into that one.

If you'll notice, numerous commenters felt that letter mirrored the embarrassing effulgences of Wahneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, "thugintellectual", and so many others of the 88.

So keep your pants on.....and please stop hiding behind "anonymous" when you wish to spew your sarcastic, encysted dry rot.

It will be much appreciated.

Lastly, if you "look bad", do something about it. Otherwise, worry about yourself and your own insecurities.

Anonymous said...

"TO 5:00 PM--

Get out from underneath "anonymous" and we'll talk."

No, thanks, I prefer to have what I say stand on its own merits.

"The Haynie letter confirms the veracity of the "faculty" letter...satire or ignorant rant."

The Haynie letter confirms the veracity of the Haynie letter, not of any other letter. One might as well say that the McFadyen e-mail, which in the edited version that was leaked to the press appeared to be a frightening and vile threat, "confirmed the veracity" of the completely false "sting" e-mail which purported to be from one of the players saying they were going to tell the police all they knew about 'the crime'.

"The second "faculty" letter was decidely low-rent. Not as much effort put into that one."

Agreed.

"If you'll notice, numerous commenters felt that letter mirrored the embarrassing effulgences of Wahneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, "thugintellectual", and so many others of the 88."

Which is very interesting but irrelevant to the point. Far from proving that the letter came from "one of the Faculty Gang of 88", it could be easily explained by the unknown satirist being a good satirist... or by "numerous commentators" being too tickled to get their hands on a letter that easy to rip apart that they don't spot that that was in fact the intent.

"So keep your pants on.....and please stop hiding behind "anonymous" when you wish to spew your sarcastic, encysted dry rot."

One thing you certainly do well, Debrah, is to use vituperative verbs, nouns and adjectives. It's a shame that that talent covers up a lack of substance. What on earth, for instance, is "encysted" supposed to mean in this context? My opinion are enclosed in a vesicle in the body, perhaps accompanied by a gaseous, liquid, or semisolid substance? I'm sure it's very satisfying to your rage to use a nasty-sounding medical word like "encysted" to describe someone whose opinions are abhorrent and intolerable to you (i.e., someone whose opinions differ from yours.) But while it certainly has a ringing, righteous sound, and adequately conveys your fury, it signifies nothing.

"It will be much appreciated.

Lastly, if you "look bad", do something about it. Otherwise, worry about yourself and your own insecurities."

If you had read carefully, you would have detected that I said not "I look bad" but that you were making us look bad. Nothing you have said here provides any reason to change that opinion. Causes are often judged by the quality of their champions. When KC Johnson over at DIW provides a meticulously researched explanation of some part of the Hoax, people who were undecided before say "Hmmm, this KC Johnson is a smart person who works things out logically. If such a logical thinker thinks that the Group of 88 represent a serious problem, maybe he's right and I should consider that possibility." When you treat a satire written by someone who is clearly just as opposed to the Gang of 88 as you are as if it really was coming from the Gang of 88, people say "Well, this Debrah person thinks the Group of 88 is a real problem, but she can't even tell the real Group of 88 from someone mocking them. Why on earth would the opinion of someone like that impress me?"

Debrah said...

TO 5:00 PM--

You really must be a (johnny or a johnnie) one note...because that 5 o'clock shadow is your security blanket.

Judging by your carefully orchestrated posting space--allotted only to you (5:00)--I'd say that you might even run this blog.

LOL!!!

If you read carefully, I did not say that the letter was authentic. Just that it was horrific. If you can put on your glasses for a moment and check the Chronicle thread, numerous commenters were taking that letter very seriously.

Did I examine it sentence by sentence with a microscope? No.

This is not an exam and for you to continue on as you have, there is something personal going on with you....which is why my distaste for cowards and ankle-biters like you is much more pointed.

You have a bone to pick, but from reading your posts, I'd say that you are more of a "slurper".

Let me illuminate that it came as a shock to me that the Chronicle allowed fraudulent letters to be printed. I don't often go there.

Doesn't one have to sign in and give personal information?

Isn't the comment board moderated at all?

This hairsplitting has nothing to do with the letter, but with that bug up your rear....something personal toward me.

I really despise "anonymous" cowards who hide as they spend so much time trying to argue with someone.

If you or anyone else thinks that particular letter could not have very easily come from one of the Gang of 88, then you are not only a yellow-belly, you are a most disingenuous one.

As many have opined, the fact that so many commenters--who skimmed it quickly as I did--thought it might be authentic speaks volumes about the quality of the academy at Duke right now.

I hope you get off on this "anonymous" charade of yours. Do you also hide and mastarbate behind corners while watching dirty movies?

Try coming out with your identity and tell us what your real problem is.

You are a fool who has tried to take trivia...blow it up...and attack one person for the same initial response that others had.

Did you also attack KC when he was fooled by the imposter's phony letter that he used in a post a few months ago? Did you tell him how BAD that looked?

I bet the hell not! You're too much of a coward with a very narrow outlook of your surroundings.

People like you are really just around to cause discord as they live with the stench of their own silently-passed-gas.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

Debrah:

Which phony letter? This sounds interesting.

Anonymous said...

In her first comment on this thread, Debrah wrote: "Go over to the Chronicle and read the horrific letter sent in response to this by one of the Faculty Gang of 88. ... Of course, he/she didn't sign their name." (emphasis added)

The next day, Debrah said "If you read carefully, I did not say that the letter was authentic. Just that it was horrific."

Pretending for the moment -- purely for the sake of argument -- that flat-out stating that the letter came from "one of the Faculty Gang of 88" is not saying that the letter is authentic. Compare it to the following statement:

"Go over to [arbitrary place] and read the horrific Protocols of the Elders of Zion written by the leader of a Jewish conspiracy to subvert and conquer the world. Of course, he/she didn't sign her name. ... If you read carefully, I did not say that the Protocols were authentic. Just that they were horrific."

I rest my case. I will let Debrah have the last word, which will probably involve the phrase "poo gas".

Debrah said...

TO 10:43PM--

Hey coward.

You didn't address my question about KC....after using him as one of your examples. The reason you can't is because what happened in that instance is the same that happened with the "Faculty" letter.

The Gang of 88 write and sound so much like what was printed, that at first blush, most people took it seriously.

You really have a personal problem.....and it is the Diva.

I'm afraid this is something you will be unable to touch.

Now do run along.....unless you wish to approach the KC question.

Hmmmmm? Too much of a coward for reality?

Anonymous said...

Protocals of Zion - Wow - I doubt Hitler believed that stuff. "Not authenic but horrific" What does that mean? You want to talk horrific - how about killing six million Jews, a million gyspies, millions and millions more -

Anonymous said...

To the other posters re Debrah-----

She refers to herself in the 3d person--LFOL.

Thaaaarrrr she blooowwssssss!

Anonymous said...

LS = This Deb is insulting and nasty - why is this going on here?

Anonymous said...

12:06 --

I agree, it's hard for an intelligent person today to believe that anyone ever seriously believed the Protocols to be authentic. But the evidence is that it did; Imperial Japan believed the Protocols' depiction of Jews controlling finance to the degree that they devised a plan discussed at the highest levels to induce Jews fleeing Europe to settle in Japanese-controlled territories, to curry the favor of the purported "international Jewish conspiracy" and to reap the benefit of their transplanted citizens' almost supernatural abilities to garner profit -- both as depicted in the Protocols.

Even if one doubts that Hitler actually believed in the authenticity of the Protocols (and I know of no reason for such doubt besides incredulity) there is no doubt at all that he cited the Protocols to others as "proof" of the threat posed by the Jews. Consider this passage from Mein Kampf:

How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which are so violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and moans, the FRANKFURTER ZEITUNG repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly set forth. It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of the Jewish people and these writings expound in all their various directions the final aims towards which the Jews are striving.

Note that Hitler falls into a pattern of circular logic we find quite often in those who are citing forgeries and hoaxes to further their cause: he insists that the forgery really is the actual words written down of the enemies being railed against, and their own words can thus be used to prove the depths of depravity of those enemies. Then, however, he turns around and says that it does not matter so much after all if the document is authentic, because it's such an accurate depiction of the way They think and the schemes They have in store that its authenticity is, well, secondary.

What matters, Hitler wants us to believe, is that they were horrific.

Anonymous said...

Deb Deb really is a piece of work. I think she's got a deviated septum from all of the coke she snorts...