Reginald Daye died last night.

Crystal Mangum will face new charges today.

Years of sanctuary in the Church of Political Correctness, at the altar of White Guilt that entitles Black Denial, enabled this tragedy. There will be no introspection in the classes of Wahneema Lubiano today, or in Barry Saunders N&O column or in the pulpits of Durham’s Black community on Sunday. No op-ed will shriek out to Mangum’s handlers...”We Know You KNOW!”

Everything that happened to Sister Survivor is always somebody else's’ fault. Professor Lubiano’s silly word-soup prose is at least understandable to that degree.

She asked us years ago:

"What Does A Social Disaster Sound Like?"

Well, here’s a start.

If I lived near Durham, I would walk into Lubiano’s classroom today with the statement Mangum gave to Ben Himan ...her own description of her life as a 14 year old child in the bosom of Durham’s Black community.

“/28/06 - 0918

1.Called victim [Crystal Mangum] in reference to an earlier sexual assault that she reported at Creedmor police department. She stated that she was dating F_____ at the time.

2. She stated that she had ran away from home on previous times and that she had been found hiding at F____'s house after the police came with a search warrant.

3. She stated that she was used by F____ to sell drugs and take the money to him.

4. She stated that when F____ was not there some men would come over, L____, A_____ and S_____. She stated that she would have sex with them when Floyd was not around.

5. She stated later that the men paid F____ to come over and have sex with her.

6. She stated that one day F_____ confronted the victim about the men that were coming over and having sex with her. She stated that she denied it to him and then he brought the three men to the house.

7. She stated in front of her she asked them and they all said that they had been having sex with her. She stated that F____ grabbed her and they went into the bedroom where she stated three men Mr. F____, A____ and L____ “ran the train on her”

She stated she was very scared .

8, In her voice I could sense that she was becoming very emotional, she stated that she did tell some of her family members about it and that she went to Duke Hospital about a week after the incident. “

@@@@@@

This “autobiography” OF A 14 YEAR OLD CHILD...was, of course, available during the Lacrosse Hoax...but this story of the commandeering of a Black child drew no comment from Dick Brodhead. The abandonment of responsibility for this 14 year old by her parents and church and extended Black community...did not drive Professor Lubiano to abandon her own Thesaurus-thumping and go to print again. Nor would the plight of Mangum’s children as she escalated...move any of those in "Our Hearts World" to advocate for their safety.

No, but we did see an example of the enormous energy and passion expended by these folks on...

On a Hoax.

I would ask Lubiano who in the Black community of Durham was “listening” to this 14 year old child as Black men abused her and used her as a drug mule? Where were Crystal's parents, who were so moving in their media interviews when the accused victimizers were white? Where were the Reverends who thundered from their pulpits and marched in the streets and demanded a trial? Where were the Academic Listeners who are paid six-figures to pick at historical scabs?

And where has been their advocacy NOW for Crystal’s children?


"(We) know that the disaster didn’t begin on (April 13th) and won’t end with what the police say or the court decides. Like all disasters, this one has a history. "


Yes, the tragedy of this man’s murder has a “history”... right in Durham’s Black community, its churches, and among the Duke activists. It has a LOUD and VIVID and UNFORGETTABLE history.

Where are all of you when "Whitey" is not in the story? Why are you not out AMONG YOURSELVES...thundering for self-respect, responsibility, and accountability for your own actions and inactions? Why did you push into a Hoax and then leave the story when Mangum’s three children COULD NOT LEAVE?

Mangum, if victimized at 14...was victimized by members of the Black community and failed by members of the Black community. Her children have been victimized and failed by you too.

Mangum, if a paranoid liar at 14 was one again when she accused Collin, Reade and Dave. Many had this knowledge and hid it. You duped your own community. Therefore they and the Lacrosse team were then victimized and failed by you too.

These are YOUR moral failures.

Now Reginald Daye has died.

THIS IS A SOCIAL DISASTER ALL OF YOUR OWN.

In the word-soup of Lubiano’s prose, is there ever any reference to Black responsibility? Or would that jeopardize what appears to be the AA Studies core belief...the Plantation mentality that someone ELSE is responsible for YOU?
Is the issue that Black Academia cannot be introspective because that might be a slippery slope to being underfunded, or to being subjected to EQUAL academic workplace expectations? But, hey, the Gig pays well. The Tenured, but achievement-untroubled Aggrieved.

The Circus that convened to keep Sister Survivor up on the High Wire during the Lacrosse Hoax needs to be have their mouths and faces pushed into the Mirror of Accountability. They need to answer for a Black judge who pronounced Mangum...”a good Mother” and returned her to the street, untreated, to kill.

They need to search their souls about the death of Mr. Daye. One suspects though, that he will be as expendable as Mr. Elmostafa.

This is not our grandfathers’ sins we are talking about now. This is the type of Race Solidarity that excuses Mangum, as Jackie Wagstaff, Durham activist, did...as the inability of other races to understand “the Black household.”

How insulting that should be! But the Duke Listeners, so protective of the sensibilities of their minority students... let that type of ugly rhetoric slide. The “n-word” dirties the mouth it emanates from...but Wagstaffs “philosophy” demeans an entire race. ..and not a peep.

Such is the Mindset of the new purveyors of racism and sexism.They keep us divided so they do not have to provide accountability for those they abandon after the Pity Party. They keep us divided because it puts a buck in their pocket, or a vote after their name.

Like Nifong, they all used Mangum.

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/no-amanda-he-used-her.html

Time after time, her messes were cleaned up and she was deemed...too crazy to prosecute but not to have custody of her children. Too disoriented to be responsible but not to earn a MAGNA CUM LAUDE degree from NCCU?

This woman who spent long nights trolling motels, gyrating on poles till dawn was either genius enough to attend school every day with SUPERIOR excellence...or that degree is nothing more than a racial “high five” making meaningless all others that were truly EARNED at NCCU.


". . .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. "

I’ll tell you...on the other side of this... were three innocent young children...sentenced by both stubborn race-Rah! Rah! support or Whitey-Absence apathy...to live their daily lives in real terror..not the “terror” of some Coed at Duke.

Where is are the voices that demanded “absence of terror” for Mangum’s children after her LAST knife-wielding..fire setting episode?

Or the absence of terror for Katie Rouse?

Why is no one LISTENING anymore?

Follow the money..the promotions...the self-interest.

Now a man has died.

Let’s keep the humanity of the victim in front of us, hectored Cathy Davidson...Listener-Apologist Extraordinaire.

Indeed let’s do.

His name was Reginald Daye.

His death is the culmination of a Hoax EVERY ONE of YOU Agenda-istas at Duke and in Durham...aided and abetted

....and then abandoned when it no longer worked for you.

YOUR swagger started long ago...and it has ended.... in a man's death and to your everlasting shame.

Duke Professors and the 610 Protests

Video from WRAL TV - The potbangers protest

Note! Italicized paragraphs were taken from Ekstrand Lawsuit & The Duke Lacrosse Team Lawsuit. The photos and videos are all available freely on the Internet.

With Durham PD Cpl Addison's inflammatory & false remarks on WRAL March 24 2006, the Duke community composed of professors, employees, Trinity Park residents, and local activists joined together to start a series of daily protests which propelled the dubious story into a national event by skillfully using organizing techniques. Voices of calm who called for restraint until the charges could be examined were thrown by the wayside. The Duke PD knew the charges came from a mentally troubled woman and had expressed their opinion it would go away.

However people were at work creating a metanarrative that fit the mantra of race, class, and gender which had become the centerpiece of these professor's academic agendas. It was promoted as the perfect storm composed of town and gown issues with the allegations buoyed by the false reports of injuries coming from Duke University Medical Center. Duke professors who should have followed the code of conduct in their faculty handbook threw it aside and began an vitroilic attack on the entire Lacrosse Team. It was a great opportunity! Brodhead and his Administration who were assured the charges were most likely false by their own PD failed to stop the Duke professors and their employees.

"But once you tell one lie, you've got to tell another and another and another. You're caught up in a web of lies."

Durham attorney Butch Williams
Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) March 31, 2006

Duke Faculty Encourage Campus Protests Against Lacrosse Players

250. As the Duke administration was thus rebuffing the parents' requests for support for their sons, a large number of Duke faculty members, other Duke employees, and students immediately rushed to condemn the lacrosse team. Over the weekend of March 25-26, they began a prolonged public campaign of harassment and organized protests falsely condemning the lacrosse players both for committing a heinous crime and for attempting to cover it up. They also called upon the Duke administration immediately to condemn the lacrosse team, to cancel the lacrosse season, and to impose disciplinary sanctions on the team, its coach, and its members.

251. On the evening of March 24, Duke English professor Faulkner Fox sent an email to numerous persons associated with Duke, calling for a protest at the lacrosse game. Other Duke professors attended the protest as well. Fox later told the media: "The students need to realize they live in a community, and people are going to talk back if they do something, or potentially do something, that is disrespectful to women." Protesters holding "DON'T BE A FAN OF RAPISTS" signs arrived at the lacrosse field prior to the scheduled Georgetown game. The game, as noted above, was canceled by Brodhead shortly before it was scheduled to begin.


252. Professor Fox, in addition to calling for the "DON'T BE A FAN OF RAPISTS" protest at the Georgetown game, also helped organize a "candlelight vigil" at 610 North Buchanan on the night of March 25. On the night of Saturday, March 25, over 250 people—including Duke faculty members, staff, and students—gathered outside the house at 610 North Buchanan.


253. Gathered in front of the house, the crowd chanted "shame," and "you can't run, you can't hide," and other hostile slogans. Members of the crowd told local media that every attendee of the March 13 party should be expelled from the university.

254. The same night, the protesters moved from 610 North Buchanan to a nearby duplex located at 1105 and 1103 Urban Avenue. This house, owned by Duke University, was occupied by lacrosse team members William Wolcott, K.J. Sauer, and Erik Henkelman. The protestors surrounded the front of the house and banged on the windows, screaming "Shame!" Wolcott called Larry Moneta, Duke's Vice President for Student Affairs, and asked for help. Moneta said there was nothing he could do.


255. At approximately 6:10 a.m. the next morning, Sunday, March 26, Duke personnel and students, gathered outside the lacrosse team's residences and engaged in a so-called "pot-banging" protest. They banged on pots and pans, trash bins, water jugs, and empty beer cans. The crowd wielded signs reading "CASTRATE!!", "You can't rape and run," and "It's Sunday morning, time to confess." Other signs stated: "Real men don't protect rapists," "Don't rape and run," "Give Them Equal Measure" and "Get a Conscience, Not a Lawyer." Sam Hummel, Duke University's Environmental Sustainability Coordinator, shouted into a megaphone: "The community consequences for this action, I guarantee, will range far beyond the legal consequences you will face." The crowd chanted: "Who's protecting rapists? They're protecting rapists! So who are the rapists? They must be the rapists!" The protest lasted at least two and a half hours.

Sam Hummel, Duke's Sustainability Director, chanting

475. The menacing slogans were compounded by “speakers” who addressed the crowd and the home of three of the lacrosse team captains through a bull horn. The Potbanger- Speakers variously asserted that a rape occurred and demanded a confession. The statements of Potbanger-Speakers, many of whom were University Professors, Administrators, and students, included, for example:

(1) “We are making this kind of noise because we are standing in solidarity with the women who have gone through this horrible atrocity.”

(2) “Wake up! Wake up! The Sun is up! It’s Sunday morning! Time to confess!”

(3) “We want the members of the Duke Lacrosse team to come clean.”

(4) “They haven’t been convicted, but 30-something kids are remaining silent.”

476. Several Durham Police and Duke Police Officers were standing a short distance away, watching the mob in front of 610 N. Buchanan, and did nothing to intervene. One officer appeared to be taking pictures.

256. Upon information and belief, Hummel played an instrumental role in the protests, helping to organize them by, among other things: sending one or more emails calling for a protest, creating and distributing a slanted and harassing "fact sheet," attending the protest and directing multiple signs (including "Get a Conscience, Not a Lawyer") at the lacrosse house and at television cameras, shouting into a megaphone during the protest, and setting up a speaker system for the protest. Hummel also posted harassing and inflammatory messages on the "Durham Responds" Yahoo Group. In one message, Hummel implored readers to attend an event "geared toward educating the larger Duke community about the sexual assault that occurred two weeks ago in a house just off East Campus that is rented by Duke students." In another message, Hummel referenced a protest in which he had recently participated, and then discussed "planning an on-going response to the March 13th sexual assault that addresses root cause issues such as racism, sexism, misogyny, alcohol culture, paternalism, economic exploitation, athlete impunity, and Duke's (lack of) accountability to the community." On information and belief, Hummel was also involved in creating and/or distributing the WANTED posters, described below.

Pictures of the Lacrosse Team were posted on campus.
Sam Hummel in backround

257. In addition to Hummel, the participation of Duke faculty members in both organizing and attending the protests was extensive. As noted above, on information and belief, professor Faulkner Fox was one of the organizers of the "DON'T BE A FAN OF RAPISTS" and "CASTRATE! !" protests. Likewise, Duke professor Tim Tyson publicly admitted in a National Public Radio interview to participating in the protests, as well as the "candlelight vigil." Duke professor Kim Curtis also participated in protests targeting the lacrosse players.

Duke professor Tim Tyson

Professor Tyson, a board member of the Insitute of Southern Studies, is a Visiting Professor of American Christianity and Southern Culture, Duke Divinity School and Senior Research Scholar at the Center for Documentary Studies. On April 2 2006 he wrote this column for the News-Observer.

..White college students a few generations back would sometimes hire a black man to let them tie his hands behind his back, and then the black man would try to fish coins and bills out of a barrel of flour. More recently, white fraternities would don blackface and hold "slave auctions" at parties. Such minstrel humor was very popular but racially degrading, damaging the community and the people involved.

This is also the case with rich white boys hiring black "exotic dancers."

The spirit of the lynch mob lived in that house on Buchanan Boulevard, regardless of the truth of the most serious charges. The ghastly spectacle takes its place in a history where African- American men were burned at the stake for "reckless eyeballing" -- that is, looking at a white woman -- and white men kept black concubines and mistresses and raped black women at will.

It matters, of course, what happened. But the dynamics of race, power and violence that have marred our history remain with us. When the men of one group have most of the power and privilege and see themselves as above the law, that will always be a recipe for abusive relationships with women from other groups, sometimes physically violent, more often spiritually violent... NewsObserver

258. On March 26, Brodhead had a telephone conversation with Durham Mayor Bill Bell. The next day, Bell complained publicly about the team's silence and urged Duke to cancel the whole season to "send a strong message to the community."

Duke Professor Houston Baker appeared to take the lead as the chief spokesman of the campus professors and those at John Hope Franklin Center, who would eventually create the "We're Listening " ad. He would appear in numerous radio, TV, and newspapers condemning the Lacrosse Team and the culture of racism.

In an report from the WRAL web site Professor Baker appears to be the first who starts the call demanding the disbanding of the Lacrosse Team.

...The English professor wrote an open letter criticizing the slow response of the administration. claiming that they have known for months and even years about the lacrosse team's bad reputation.

"It seems to me to wait until the 28th to have a major press conference by leaders of this university is appalling," said Dr. Houston Baker. "The slowness of response and the feeling among a lot of faculty that the men's lacrosse team has long been a unit of bad actors and it's been known by university leaders and still it's escalated into a national crisis and local disaster is frustrating."

Baker would like to see the current men's lacrosse team disbanded and the university put a blue ribbon committee in place to mandate how to handle these types of situations. Baker also wants a new lacrosse team formed -- one with certain standards and expectations set out by the university. In his letter, Baker referred to the lacrosse team as privileged white male athletes...WRAL TV

This drumbeat would continue for weeks and it certainly appears Duke President Brodhead succumbed to mob rule by cancelling the Lacrosse season and "threw" the players under the bus. The myth of the culture of white privilege had been created by just a few professors who used their graduate studies and professional activists to incite the community and the nation. It certainly wasn't about the truth.

“The arrogance and bravado that they were above the law or they could think this woman is below the respect of the human community really outrages a lot of people.” Duke Professor Faulkner Fox

259. In the face of these menacing protests, the players reasonably feared for their physical safety. Players Evans, Zash, Flannery, Wolcott, Sauer, and Henkelman were driven from their homes. On or around March 28, Player Bo Carrington was accosted and surrounded on campus by a jostling crowd of students who shouted "Tell the police what you know! Why are you protecting these rapists?" On Sunday, March 26, when pressed by defense counsel to provide more security or at least excused absences from class for the players, Moneta refused, stating "well, frankly, I don't believe them."

Epilogue

Two years have passed since this modern day witch hunt began. Duke University has never criticized the actions of its Faculty and employees despite knowing the 2006 Lacrosse Team was falsely accused. One wonders why Duke persists in denying the truth that on those horrible days in March 2006 their Faculty and employees engage in a hateful & racist attack on the Lacrosse Team?

Say What? Part II

Duke University has begun another academic year and that means the group of professors called the Duke 88 are back. It didn’t take long for one of them to cause controversy. No, not about the Duke Lacrosse Case. They were warned that their indemnification from lawsuits only would include any actions before the settlement date of June 2007. This time it was about the Michael Vick Dog-Fighting Case.

Duke Professor Mary Kathy Rudy is an associate professor of women's studies and she wrote a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on August 28.

White culture's hypocrisy about Vick

Unable to withhold herself she had to introduce Race & Class issues in her column.

Yet, I find what's happening with Vick, who pleaded guilty Monday to a felony charge, alarming.

We need to face the fact that dog fighting is not the only "sport" that abuses animals. Cruelty also occurs in rodeos, horse and dog racing (all of which mistreat animals and often kill them when no longer useful). There are also millions of dogs and cats we put to death in "shelters" across the country because they lack a home, and billions of creatures we torture in factory farms for our food.

Vick treated his dogs very cruelly; there is no question about that. But I see one important difference between these more socially acceptable mistreatments and the anger focused on Vick: Vick is black, and most of the folks in charge of the other activities are white.

Some might argue that the difference between dogfighting and these other forms of animal abuse is that dogfighting is illegal. That's true, but the fact that dogfighting is illegal while other institutions remain acceptable is because dogfighting no longer a sport of the middle and upper class.

Dogfighting (and cock fighting) used to be "sports" enjoyed by the upper classes in the United States and were, then, perfectly legal.

Thus despite the admission from Vick that he engaged in dog-fighting, gambling, and the killing of dogs over a six year period she somehow lays partial blame on the White Culture calling it Hypocrisy.

So what course is Professor Rudy teaching this fall?

GENDER AND EVERYDAY LIFE

A viewing of the synopsis finds this interesting question.

What is gender? And why does it matter? This course hopes to answer both of these questions by focusing on specific instances and settings in which our everyday lives are shaped by gender.

They're Back!

Duke Prof Channels Wendy Murphy

What’s that you say, Mr. Robinson?

.

Have logic and justice left and gone away? This question should be on everyone’s mind after reading Duke Law School Professor Robinson Everett’s defense of DA Nifong in the Herald-Sun yesterday.

.

Professor Everett endorsed DA Nifong in the primary and general elections. Unlike Citizen’s Committee Co-Chair Kim Brummel, who demanded Nifong apologize for his unethical conduct, Professor Everett apparently sees nothing wrong with DA Nifong’s decision to hide evidence in the Hoax. He apparently believes that Wendy Murphy understands the issues raised by Nifong’s conduct better than his fellow Duke law professor James Coleman. Everett argues that it is unclear whether “Nifong had any duty to provide the defense with evidence about the presence on the accuser’s body of semen from other persons who were not lacrosse players.” Everett cites North Carolina’s rape shield law, rule or evidence 412 and suggests that it allows a District Attorney to hide evidence he doesn’t think will ultimately be admitted at trial.

.

Everett states:

“Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence that alleged victim had sexual relations with persons other than the lacrosse players; but, after examining the rule, I doubt that those exceptions would apply in this case. Therefore, Judge Smith, who will try the case, may not allow the jury to hear this evidence – although the evidence clearly should be admissible that the tests revealed no semen from the lacrosse players on the body of the accused…I wonder whether the district attorney violated any constitutional or statutory requirement if he had the laboratory delete from its “reports of test result” those that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.”

Rule 412 states the following:

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior:

(1) Was between the complainant and the defendant; or

(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant; or

(3) Is evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior so distinctive and so closely resembling the defendant's version of the alleged encounter with the complainant as to tend to prove that such complainant consented to the act or acts charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the complainant consented; or

(4) Is evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the complainant fantasized or invented the act or acts charged.

Let’s set aside (4) and its potential relevance for the time being. How in the present case is it even remotely possible to argue that (2) does not apply? How can anyone, let alone a distinguished professor of law, argue that multiple DNA samples found on the accuser in this case are not “evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendants”? Isn’t that exactly why the other DNA from at least four unidentified males is relevant? Nifong didn’t even try to argue the Robinson Everett/Wendy Murphy theory to the court, to the media, or to the NC Bar Grievance Committee. Does Professor Everett really believe the lawyer he publicly endorsed for district attorney is so incompetent that he didn’t raise an obvious argument in his own behalf and instead chose first to deny knowledge and then to make up a story about protecting the players’ privacy? Even with his career on the line, does Everett actually believe that Nifong just missed that argument or forgot his true motivations?

.

Perhaps DA Nifong’s reluctance to use Everett’s argument was due to the fact that he said repeatedly on national television and to local Durham media that he believed the accuser’s story because of the medical report from Duke Hospital, which he asserted showed vaginal trauma, and which the police described in multiple search warrants by stating, “Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.”

.

Setting aside the fact that the medical records said no such thing and only noted diffuse edema of the vaginal walls, is Professor Everett seriously arguing that DNA found in the vaginal vault, in the rectum, and on the accuser’s underwear that doesn’t match any of the lacrosse players should be excluded from evidence because it isn’t relevant? Is he seriously arguing that DA Nifong was justified in withholding this evidence, even as his office leaked to the press the “non-exclusion” of Dave Evans from a DNA pool created from multiple plastic fingernails found in the trashcan in Evans’ bathroom? How exactly could a defendant respond to such claims in Mr. Robinson’s evidentiary neighborhood? The prosecution would assert the “injuries” were caused by the defendant, because if the defendant didn’t cause them, who did? Then the defendant would say what? Does Robinson Everett really believe a court would prevent a defendant from suggesting that the multiple donors of the recovered DNA samples may have caused the “injuries”? As controversial as rape shield laws are, does Everett really believe they operate that irrationally?

.

Furthermore, the additional DNA samples in this case are highly relevant for two other important reasons. First, the accuser claimed that at least one of the accused ejaculated. The apparent justification for why no DNA was found is a magic towel that managed to wipe away all the accused’s DNA, but left the DNA of other men. How can the defense be precluded from offering the other DNA as evidence against the magic towel theory? Second, the accuser claims that she didn’t have sexual relations with anyone prior to the party and only had sex with her boyfriend a week earlier. This claim is directly relevant to the significance attached to any medical evidence of “trauma” in her vaginal area. How can DNA evidence to the contrary possibly be considered irrelevant to the question?

.

Most importantly, it must be noted that Everett supports his argument by miscontsruing the rape shield law in stating, "Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence." In fact, Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow presentation of evidence at trial and does not speak to receipt of evidence except to specifically state the opposite of what Everett falsely claims: "...all evidence relating thereto shall be open to inspection only by the parties, the complainant, their attorneys and the court and its agents."

.

Further, the statute outlines the procedure by which the evidence in question must be presented to the court so that a ruling on admissibility is made by a judge and not the prosecutor.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless and until the court determines that evidence of sexual behavior is relevant under subdivision (b), no reference to this behavior may be made in the presence of the jury and no evidence of this behavior may be introduced at any time during the trial of:
(1) A charge of rape or a lesser included offense of rape;
(2) A charge of a sex offense or a lesser included offense of a sex offense; or
(3) An offense being tried jointly with a charge of rape or a sex offense, or with a lesser included offense of rape or a sex offense.

Before any questions pertaining to such evidence are asked of any witness, the proponent of such evidence shall first apply to the court for a determination of the relevance of the sexual behavior to which it relates. The proponent of such evidence may make application either prior to trial pursuant to G.S. 15A-952, or during the trial at the time when the proponent desires to introduce such evidence. When application is made, the court shall conduct an in camera hearing, which shall be transcribed, to consider the proponent's offer of proof and the argument of counsel, including any counsel for the complainant, to determine the extent to which such behavior is relevant. In the hearing,the proponent of the evidence shall establish the basis of admissibility of such evidence. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Rule 104, if the relevancy of the evidence which the proponent seeks to offer in the trial depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court, at the in camera hearing or at a subsequent in camera hearing scheduled for that purpose, shall accept evidence on the issue of whether that condition of fact is fulfilled and shall determine that issue. If the court finds that the evidence is relevant, it shall enter an order stating that the evidence may be admitted and the nature of the questions which will be permitted.

Nowhere in Rule 412 is there a provision for allowing the prosecutor to usurp the role of the court in determining what evidence is admissible and what evidence must be provided to the defendants. It is difficult to understand how the court could rule on the admissibility of evidence hidden from it by a prosecutor. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin appears to agree with our assessment that Everett misconstrues the letter of the statute:

"The State primarily argues that the undisclosed information is not material because it would not have been admissible, as it does not meet the Pulizzano exception to the rape shield law...

.

"We also disagree with the State's argument that this evidence is not material because we determine that the State's nondisclosure of this evidence sufficiently undermines our confidence in the outcome of Harris's criminal proceeding. While the State argues at length that the undisclosed evidence is not material because it does not meet the Pulizzano test, we find this argument to be unpersuasive because the State never afforded Harris the opportunity to bring a Pulizzano motion in the first place. We need not determine whether the five factor Pulizzano test would have been met in this case because even if the test would have been met, the circuit court would still have been obligated to balance Harris's right to present the evidence against the interest of the State in excluding it." State v. Harris

Robinson Everett ignores all these well-known facts and obvious questions and suggests that Nifong was justified in hiding evidence “that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.” One wonders whether Everett is following any of the facts in this case or is instead just writing letters to the News & Observer and Herald-Sun because he assumes his intellect is so superior that the community would benefit from his baseless musings. We can only hope that justice’s version of “Joltin’ Joe” and the rest of the defense team can ultimately convince the special prosecutors to dismiss the charges in this Hoax. Until that day comes, Hoax enablers like Robinson Everett can only cause the rest of us to look to the sky and remember that “heaven holds a place for those who pray.”

FODU Statement

Friends of Duke University ran an ad in today’s Chronicle responding to an open letter issued jointly by a group of Duke University professors. The text of the statement is as follows:

Some Questions from Friends of Duke University

In a recent Duke Chronicle article, Group of 88 member Ronen Plesser maintained that the new statement of a group calling itself “Concerned Duke Faculty” would form a “basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.”

.

Friends of Duke University endorses this conversation. But we also believe that the basis for one aspect of this conversation—the meaning of the Group of 88’s April 6 ad—needs more clarification. In that light, we would like to offer some questions for the “Concerned Duke Faculty.”

Principles of Due Process

The April 6 ad explicitly thanked “students speaking individually” and “protestors making collective noise” for not waiting. The fundamental question is what was not worthy of being awaited. Time for reason to assist emotion? Time for evidence to be gathered and assessed? Time for a defense to be made? If you were so attuned to due process, why did you fail to mention it in your April 6 ad?

.

In your recent statement, you stated “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.” Do you or do you not endorse the “potbanging” protest that was widely covered in the media? Could you explain to the University community what criteria you used in the April 6 ad to determine which protests were worthy of your endorsement and which protests merited your disapproval?

.

In your recent statement, you claim to “stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.” What, then, should readers of the April 6 ad have inferred from your reference to “what happened to this young woman”? Given that she had accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape, isn’t that the obvious inference, carrying with it implied guilt of some members of the lacrosse team?

.

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

Statements of Your Fellow Signatories

Do you agree with the March 31 Chronicle op-ed of your colleague and fellow signatory, Bill Chafe, who suggested that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided an appropriate historical context through which to interpret the actions of the lacrosse players?

.

Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that innocence and guilt have been “assessed through a metric of race and gender. White innocence means black guilt”? If so, which pieces of evidence cited by defenders of the players relate to race and gender?

.

Your colleague and fellow signatory, Alex Rosenberg, told the New York Sun on October 27 that he signed the ad because he was bothered by “affluent kids violating the law to get exploited women to take their clothes off when they could get as much hookup as they wanted from rich and attractive Duke coeds.” Was raising this issue one of the ad’s purposes?

The University and Its Students

Will you document the methodology used to obtain a representative cross section of campus opinion for the “listening” statement?

The April 6 ad contains the following anonymous quote from an alleged Duke student: “Being a big, black man, it’s hard to walk anywhere at night, and not have a campus police car slowly drive by me.” Have any of you approached the Duke police force to ask if it has a policy of slowing down when officers see a Black man on campus? Have any of you experienced or observed this phenomenon?

.

In your recent statement, you criticized those who read the April 6 ad “as rendering a judgment in the case.” That ad quoted an anonymous student, who allegedly said, “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation”; another anonymous student allegedly said, “If something like this happens to me . . . what would be used against me—my clothing?” Would you agree that these anonymous students appeared to have rendered a judgment in the case?

Looking Ahead

Given that in your new statement you decried an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke? If so, how could you support their entering an environment that you have publicly described as so dangerous?

.

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

.

These questions were gathered from comments made on our website, and on Professor KC Johnson’s website. Friends of Duke University does not endorse anonymous e-mails and does not endorse efforts to threaten or harass members of the lacrosse team, or any other Duke University students. Nor do we endorse efforts to threaten or harass signatories to the original Group of 88 ad or the “Concerned Faculty” statement. We do, however, believe the public statements by faculty members in both instances raise important questions and we support a dialogue about the questions presented in this ad and elsewhere.

In addition to this statement published in The Chronicle, FODU issued the following press release.

Press Release

Friends of Duke University

Date: February 8, 2007

Subject: Our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University

Contact: Jason Trumpbour, Spokesperson

.

Background

.

On April 6, 2006, a group of 88 Duke University professors published an advertisement in the University newspaper The Chronicle. This ad, entitled “We are listening to our students,” contained several references to the Duke lacrosse case. It made reference to “what happened to this young woman” and stated, “To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.” It contained quotes from students such as “If something like this happens to me . . . What would be used against me--my clothing”? And “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation.”

.

These professors who became known as the “Group of 88” were widely criticized for prejudging the guilt of members of the men’s lacrosse team and for attempting to advance whatever agenda they had at the expense of these students and their reputations. Their ad was also cited by defense attorneys in their motion for a change in venue as evidence of extremely prejudicial pretrial publicity.

.

Nine months later, on January 16, 2007, a group containing most of the same members and now calling itself the “Concerned Faculty” posted an open letter on their website defending their original ad. Claiming that the original ad had been “broadly, and often intentionally, misread . . . as rendering a judgment in the case,” the group rejected calls to retract or apologize for it. The complete text of the Concerned Faculty statement as well as a link to their original ad can be found here.

.

Our Response

.

One of the group’s members, Ronen Plesser stated, “My personal hope is that this will be the basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.” However, the January 16 open letter begs more questions than it answers about the purposes of the “Listening” ad and the sort of conversation being sought given the peculiar language used to express its points and communicate its premises. The Friends of Duke University thought it appropriate to request further clarification. To that end we have today published an ad in the Chronicle asking a series of questions gathered from comments posted on our website and that of Professor K.C. Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site.

.

Friends of Duke University has repeatedly reached out to these faculty members. Our first open letter published on July 19 stated,

As for those who were quick to prejudge the accused, particularly the group of 88 professors who signed an earlier call to action, we look upon them not with malice. Instead, we ask that they now count themselves among those victimized by this spring’s false accusations. We hope that all will realize now that our enemies are not each other, but those who would profit from the unfair denigration of our university and its members.

A few days before the Concerned Faculty posted their letter, we attempted to find common ground with them by asking if they would join the University in calling for due process for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, an issue on which we hoped everyone could agree. All of our overtures have been ignored or rebuffed.

.

We remain sincere in our efforts to reach out to them. We are dismayed that, not only would they chose to ignore our efforts, but that they would instead respond with a defiant refusal to admit mistake either in judgment or expression and that they would insult the motives and/or intelligence of their critics. We do not begrudge members of the Group of 88/Concerned Faculty their right to call attention to social issues of concern to them. We instead condemn the unfair public vilification of members of the lacrosse team done in the course of expressing their concerns. We conclude our latest ad with an earnest question: “Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Economics Professors, saying that all students, including lacrosse players and other student-athletes, are welcome in your classes?”

.

A copy of that statement, originally published as a letter to the Chronicle, may be found here.

.

Friends of Duke University supports academic freedom for both faculty and students. We have no political agenda and have a diverse following representing all sorts of political views and walks of life. What all of us have in common is a deep commitment to ensuring justice for Reade, Collin and David and fair and equitable treatment for the rest of the team and Duke students generally both on campus and off. We hope that Duke University can once again be a place of civility and mutual respect among all of its members.

.

On the Web: Our site and Professor KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site

Adding Insult to Injury

Rejected for publication by The Chronicle and unable to find an alternate local venue, a group of Duke University Professors posted a joint statement to the web site of local filmaker Rodrigo Dorfman earlier this week. The "Open letter to the Duke community" represents the latest effort to rationalize the infamous "Listening Ad" issued by Duke's Group of 88 in response to the opportunity for agenda advancement presented by the Hoax. Defiantly rejecting countless calls to apologize for the ad, sixty-four members of the original Group of 88 are joined by twenty-six new converts in claiming a mutual motivation for the production and publication of the Listening Ad that has widely been perceived as a rush to judgement against the innocent students victimized by the Hoax. While refusing to repudiate the earlier statement, Duke's professors blame their critics' poor reading comprehension and ulterior motives for the outrage the Ad incited.

An Open Letter to the Duke Community

"In the spring of 2006, the Duke community was rocked by terrible news. We heard that a woman hired to perform at a party thrown by our lacrosse team had accused members of the team of raping her. Neighbors, we were told, heard racial epithets called out at the woman as she departed the party. The criminal proceedings and the media frenzy which followed are perhaps beginning to wind down. For us at Duke, the issues raised by the incident, and by our community's responses to it, are not.

.

"In April, a group of Duke faculty members published an advertisement in The Chronicle. The ad, titled "What does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" was mostly a compilation of statements made by Duke students in response to the incident and its immediate aftermath. This ad has figured in many discussions of the event and of the University's response. It has been broadly, and often intentionally, misread. We urge everyone to read the original ad, at http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm. We have. Some of us were among the ad's signers.

.

"The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused. Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case. We understand the ad instead as a call to action on important, longstanding issues on and around our campus, an attempt to channel the attention generated by the incident to addressing these. We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.

.

"As a statement about campus culture, the ad deplores a "Social Disaster," as described in the student statements, which feature racism, segregation, isolation, and sexism as ongoing problems before the scandal broke, exacerbated by the heightened tensions in its immediate aftermath. The disaster is the atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus. The ad's statement that the problem "won't end with what the police say or the court decides" is as clearly true now as it was then. Whatever its conclusions, the legal process will not resolve these problems.

.

"The ad thanked "the students speaking individually and...the protesters making collective noise." We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.

.

"There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these. We think the ad's authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case.

.

"We stand by the claim that issues of race and sexual violence on campus are real, and we join the ad's call to all of us at Duke to do something about this. We hope that the Duke community will emerge from this tragedy as a better place for all of us to live, study, and work."

Not surprisingly, the attempt to revise perceptions following the first of what may be many lawsuits filed by students against the members of the Group of 88 and the university, was woefully unsuccessful.

LieStoppers Forum Members respond to the new statement:

"Part of this is just really sloppy writing. The 'disaster' they talk about is not the alleged rape (which is just a hook for their agenda to hang from) but that's not at all clear. There is also nothing in their statement that addresses the right to a fair trial, and adding in language like 'won’t end with what the police say or the court decides' compounds the problem. Now it could be that these people, who make their living from using language, simply got it wrong. More likely these people, who make their living from using language, were using dog whistle politics.

"The real kicker, that is decisive for the dog whistle theory, is the G88's endorsement of the protests. The protesters were not seeking a solution to the G88's disaster. The protesters were seeking a railroading. Some of the protesters were advocating castration. By endorsing the protesters without endorsing the right to a fair trial, the G88 made themselves a gang of high-sounding pious hypocrites.

"The minimum way for these people to establish their intellectual honesty is a statement that they regret not having affirmed the right to a fair trial when they claimed to be speaking about the alleged rape but were actually speaking about their own agenda. Their new website offers no way to communicate with them or question their actions and motives. I wonder why that is?" Alan, Blooligan

"Lord love a duck.

"If Bill Chafe hadn't been quoted on the subject of this new letter, I'd agree with a number of the early posters in this thread that it would have to be a fake. After all, just like Don Imus told John Kerry, the best advice for the 88 right now as long as they refuse to apologize is just to "stop talking. Please stop talking."

"Stuck on stupid" is right.

"This is now officially a liability nightmare for Duke. The professors that opened them up to substantial legal jeopardy are on record unrepentantly clarifying their hostile position. Kim Curtis's signature on the letter doesn't help things in view of the pending civil action against her. If the signatories had any sense at all, well, they wouldn't have written this letter, which seems to have evaporated again into thin air, but they surely wouldn't have hitched their wagons to Curtis's falling star. As an educator myself, I wouldn't affix my name to a letter with Kim Curtis's signature on it right now if all it did was state that the sun rises in the east each morning. Open myself up to civil suits for fraud and breach of contract, plus an assault on my (lack of) professional integrity? Uh, no thanks. I'll pass.

"(And God help Duke if the civil lawyers can ever establish that the flyers Sam Hummell printed were run off on University copiers. Do you think he really went all the way down to Kinko's and PAID for them himself? After all, you can't put a price on social justice.)" Jack Webb

"First post here.

"Alan's post quoted by others as well is a gem and has inspired me to contribute. As an "inside" outsider I have followed this case from Day 1, felt the affects within my own family and seen first hand a version of the pain this whole thing has caused.

"In addition, as a professional who completed the PhD route and decided not to enter into academia, the G88's foolishness, small-mindedness and agenda-pushing makes me feel sick and confirms why I have avoided university life for so long (15 years post PhD) and counting.

"Alan's comments are right to the heart of the G88 matter and I am thankful for his words. I could not agree more and think the G88 ought to be ashamed of themselves. The original "listening" document was a knee-jerk reaction and an obvious way to push their agenda. They acted like reporters for a trash newspaper and tried to capitalize on an emerging "story." Shame on them.

"Instead of going for the "story" they should have invested their energy working with the University to address what they supposedly "listened" to. I recall the task force that went to study the issue right after the alleged incident. Has that yielded anything? Have any of the G88 participated constructively in this?

"The G88 wanted points for style and decided to publicly let everyone know how enraged they were. They used the protesters, their position and the power of the pen to their own gain. It is indicative of the political cesspools that Universites are these days. I work with senior executives in Fortune 500 companies, and I can tell you that even the worst performing public companies don't hold a candle to the dysfunctional politics that exists in faculties across the country.

"Back to Alan's thoughtful point: I agree that the faculty should state that they regret not having affirmed the players' right to a fair trial. But they should not spend too much time on this. They should quickly turn their minds, mouths and pens to addressing the issues they seem to think are so important. Step 1: Diagnosis. before making any furthers claims about tragedies, they should do as others on this post have suggested. They should test their hypotheses about the scope, size and depth of the issues they are so quick to attach their signatures to. That would be more like real scientific inquiry and responsible University behavior.

"Given their past behavior, I doubt highly that they are capable of this. But it doesn't hurt to ask them to do it. Again, shame on them.

"Thanks everyone for your posts." Concerned Human

Read more responses from LS Forum members