Saturday, December 29, 2007

Blog Hooligans find a Duke Boo Boo

TBN (addressing the studio audience):

"In October, 2001 Duke shut down Duke Professor Gary Hull's webpage after he posted an article calling for a strong military response to the terrorist attacks.

FIRE ( Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ) took the case to the media. Shamed by widespread pubilicity, Duke reinstated Hull's webpage but required that he add a disclaimer stating that the article did not represent the views of Duke.

Contrast this to Duke's reaction to the 88's Listening Statement. As discussed in KC's 12/24/07 DIW post, the Statement was prominently displayed on the African American Studies homepage for months after the Statement first appeared in the Chronicle ; there was no required disclaimer stating that the Statement did not represent the views of Duke. "

Welcome Contestant Brodhead

Round One : Tidbits:

Q. Did you require the 88 to say that the opinions were there own, not Duke's?
A. No, we can't do that. They have the right to free speech. We can't interfere.

Q. Have you ever required such a disclaimer?
A: To the best of my knowledge, No!

Tidbits: ” Oh I'm sorry, wrong answer!

Round Two: ACC Esq:

Q. I see. Let's clear it up, then. Let me show you Prof. Gary Hull's webpage that was published in September 2001. Do you see the bold disclaimer there that says -- let me quote this to make sure it is absolutely clear to you and the audience -- "The contents of this publication do not reflect the views of Duke University"?
A. yes.

Q. Prof. Hull was a professor at Duke at that time, correct.
A. Yes.

Q. And in his case, Duke University actually shut down Prof. Hull's webpage for over 2 weeks before it allowed Prof. Hull to publish it again but with this disclaimer; correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Duke University did in fact interfere with Prof. Hull's free speech rights in that case; correct?
A. yes.

Q. Prof. Hull's article did not reflect the official position of Duke so the University required a disclaimer before it permitted him to republish his article over 2 weeks later; correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it is important to Duke University to make sure its professors' articles are not construed as the University's official policy if the articles do not reflect the University's official position on issues; important enough to censor or suppress a professor's precious right of free speech until he includes a disclaimer; correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Now there is no need for a disclaimer if a professor's views do reflect the official position of Duke University; is there?
A. No, there's not.

Q. So you would agree now that Duke University does have the right to interfere with a professor's free speech if it does not conform to the University's official position or policy; correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Duke did not require a disclaimer on the Listening Statement that was signed by 88 of its professors and that was purportedly approved by several of its academic departments, did it?
A. No.

Q. And isn't it true that one of Duke's most prominent academic departments prominently featured a link to this Statement on its official Department home page for 132 days in the spring and summer of 2006?
A. Yes.

Q. And it never had a disclaimer for that entire period of time did it?
A. Er, no.

Q. So you must agree that this Listening Statement represented the official position or policy of Duke University?

A. errh ah, “We’re F*#@*d too?”

Hat Tip: TBN, Tidbits, ACC Esq


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I think you are all fucked up.

Chris Grieb said...

Excellent post!

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when you don't have a moral compass as a University. The Marxist Profs have taken over. Clearly Brodhead is fearful of the 88 professors and the power they have. Look what they did, they got a Lacrosse Season cancelled, students suspended, and incited a campus over an incident that didn't happen.

Gary said...

Very true. Very clever.

Some (unreported) back story. I was told that my program's website was shut down because the pro-military article offended some of Duke's (PC) faculty. (So much for open debate, reasoned inquiry, the commitment to academic freedom and to teaching students all sides of critical issues.)

I complained that shutting down my site violated Duke's own principles -- and that this was another example of the fascist spirit of political correctness.

Here, without exaggeration, was the response: It's okay to express alternative opinions on campus, so long as they fit into the range of views accepted by academics.

That boundaries of that "range" are, of course, defined by the PC camps on campus.

Gary Hull, Ph.D.
Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace
Duke University

Anonymous said...

Anyone who paid attention knew that the Gang of 88 did represent the official position of Duke University. This is just nice evidence to have in court. Good job blog hooligans.

Anonymous said...

Duke is a damned fraud . . . period.

Anonymous said...

If it's the viewpoint rubberstamped by the faculty, how can it be "alternative?" This is pure Stalinism.

Anonymous said...

welcum 2 da souf

Anonymous said...

I agree with 6:20 am

Anonymous said...

I love it when some stupid feminist comes in here and posts twice to make it look like anyone agrees with her/its pro-false accusation stance.

Anonymous said...

Well, judging by what happened to Bhutto, there are some who do not participate in the Duke faculty's definition of "political correctness." What to do? What to do? Even Obama has discussed invading Pakistan in hot pursuit, but a Duke professor dare not discuss unwanted realities. It is the same kind of "freedom of speech" that exists in Drafur. Duke is populated by a group of close-minded bigots. By the way, people of all colors, races, and sex or sexual preference lie. To have the Duke experience is to experience the proof of that top to bottom. These intellectuals do not realize their own complicity in the 9-11 fiasco let lone the lacrosse debacle.

Anonymous said...

They realize it, all right. But they have no problem rationalizing it.

It's certainly true that people of all colors, genders, and backgrounds lie, but what happened in this case was a form of lie that is 100% enabled by the government, which shields the liars from all consequences. If Crystal Mangum had been a white woman lying about poor black men, you may never have heard about her. But regardless, she still would have been rewarded for committing perjury.

And make no mistake-- she has been richly rewarded beyond her wildest dreams. She is a household name and has been promised a free trip to college, all because she made false statements to the police-- statements which would never have been believed had the authorities applied the common sense of a five year-old.

Anonymous said...

she couldnt have done anything without politics involved. many people are guilty in this case and others. ask your precios feds what the duck they are doing about it, crystal was only a pawn

Anonymous said...

No, she was not a pawn. She was the source of this entire mess, and you're kidding yourself if you think that she couldn't have done the same thing in any other part of this country. What happened in this case was not a rare exception, although it did feature an exceptionally stupid prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

no other part of the country would have allowed it to go on, and she would eb im jail for falso accusations. But not in Durm, everythig is just okie dokie

Anonymous said...

Good call on the double standard at Duke.

P.S. I always laugh because your cartoons invariably depict Brodhead fiddling around with his mangina.

Anonymous said...

4:46- You're completely wrong. False accusations happen all over American, and false accusers are almost never punished even when they're caught red-handed.

Anonymous said...

neither are politicians who lurk in mens bathrooms at airports looking for sex, what a wonderful world

Anonymous said...

I thought a US Senator had recently been busted for doing just that. And his career is ending because of it. But Crystal Mangum and other false accusers will never be held accountable.

wumhenry said...

Round One lays a bad rap on Brodhead. He was still at Yale in 2001. Blame his predecessor, Nannerl Keohane instead.

Anonymous said...

Blame the politicians and cops who made the whole debacle into a side show!

Anonymous said...

There is so much more to come out of Durham than the LAX case. The entire legal system is broken, the cops are thugs and worse than you can imagine. Countless elected officials from the Governor, down to the City Manager, to the County Clerk are involved. Many fingers have dipped into Durham's cookie jar, and the truth will be extremely explosive to many who have turned their backs on citizens, justice, and any code of ethics or valor. Embrace yourselves for an extreme shock. A tidal wave of truth will boggle your mind, the corruption SHALL be exposed!