Three Part Essay on the Duke Lacrosse Case

[Mr X]

any press is good press and TalkLeft can use some more traffic.

I didnt' realize TL was lamenting her loss of traffic?

From what I can gather numerous posters left as a result of the seemingly non-sensical censorship practices here.

didn't keep you from contributing, did she?

there is a cave nearby...........

[JoanOfDark]

any press is good press and TalkLeft can use some more traffic.

I didnt' realize TL was lamenting her loss of traffic?

From what I can gather numerous posters left as a result of the seemingly non-sensical censorship practices here.

didn't keep you from contributing, did she?

there is a cave nearby...........

Link please.

[MarkRougemont]

any press is good press and TalkLeft can use some more traffic.

I didnt' realize TL was lamenting her loss of traffic?

From what I can gather numerous posters left as a result of the seemingly non-sensical censorship practices here.

 Gee Joan,
And here I was thinking they all left because of a Trinity Park resident who was a self-described Cheek volunteer, that was tarketing potential new posters that were likely to type while drinking.

Learn something every day.

[hellbent]

any press is good press and TalkLeft can use some more traffic.

I didnt' realize TL was lamenting her loss of traffic?

From what I can gather numerous posters left as a result of the seemingly non-sensical censorship practices here.

 Gee Joan,
And here I was thinking they all left because of a Trinity Park resident who was a self-described Cheek volunteer, that was tarketing potential new posters that were likely to type while drinking.

Learn something every day.

Mark,

If you are alluding to the poster who Newport claimed drank too much, she's doesn't seem to be around to defend herself. Shame on you!

[Sydney Carton]

   Mark,

If you are alluding to the poster who Newport claimed drank too much, she's doesn't seem to be around to defend herself. Shame on you!

   Have you checked under the table?

    Personally,I've been witholding  further comment till I saw(as Zimmerman himself requested) where the articles were going. However,long ago, I promised a summary of Duke academic shenanigans that had not been chronicled here;and now Zimmerman has brought up some,but not all, of the same names and incidents which I was planning to use.
   I think a couple of paragraphs need to be added and will post them by Monday.

[vegas]

Happy Holidays Mark, Sydney, Mr X and Hellbent - and to anyone else, out there.

[Sydney Carton]

   Merry Christmas to you too,Vegas and anyone else who may be lurking.
     I just found this little notice on Mosteller's article over at KC's ( Dec.5).While some of us may be gone here is yet more proofthey are  certainly not forgotten.

   Early in the case, a couple of pro-Mangum trolls at the TalkLeft boards spent weeks maintaining that the April 4, 2006 lineup respected Durham procedures (five fillers per suspect) because two or three of the lacrosse players didn’t attend the party, and thus could be considered fillers. This assertion, of course, was absurd, for reasons that, most recently, the Robert Mosteller article explains.
   

[MarkRougemont]

   Merry Christmas to you too,Vegas and anyone else who may be lurking.
     I just found this little notice on Mosteller's article over at KC's ( Dec.5).While some of us may be gone here is yet more proofthey are  certainly not forgotten.

   Early in the case, a couple of pro-Mangum trolls at the TalkLeft boards spent weeks maintaining that the April 4, 2006 lineup respected Durham procedures (five fillers per suspect) because two or three of the lacrosse players didn’t attend the party, and thus could be considered fillers. This assertion, of course, was absurd, for reasons that, most recently, the Robert Mosteller article explains.
   

 That quote, SC, is typical of KC and also to some extent makes Zimmerman's point about KC.  Some here did argue that there were wrong answers in the lineups that could be considered fillers.  None that I recall ever argued that the lineup "respected Durham procedures". 

Merry Christmas to you Sydney and Vegas and anyone else that is lurking.

[Mr X]

only you would argue that the Hitler yacht sailors' didn't argue one specific point in their silly nonsense long ago. if they didn't defend the line up as in strict accord with contemporary Durm standards, it was simply an over site on their part. those "discussions" were among the weakest here, ever.

Merry Festivus to all.

[MarkRougemont]

only you would argue that the Hitler yacht sailors' didn't argue one specific point in their silly nonsense long ago. if they didn't defend the line up as in strict accord with contemporary Durm standards, it was simply an over site on their part. those "discussions" were among the weakest here, ever.

Merry Festivus to all.

 If the "discussion" and "silly nonsense" was so weak, why invent part of an argument that makes it weaker?

[MarkRougemont]

 Part 5 is up. Link below.

http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/12/sense-and-nonsense/

 He seems to be running out of things to say regarding KC.  He does however refer to another blog that seems to have much more to say and that link is provided as well.

http://tenured-radical.blogspot.com/2007/12/were-having-more-fun-than-barrel-of.html

[Sydney Carton]

  MR: He seems to be running out of things to say regarding KC.

   Yes,Mark,we waited for weeks for the final two parts that were  to consummate the coup de gras and it turned out ,as some of us suspected that he was fencing with rubber foils   all along.
    Well,very little harm done,very little offence need be taken.And a couple of the generally little noted links were worth their whistle.
     His final reference seems equally vapid. The lady seems primarily concerned in showing that she and her friends are somehow mainstram academic.If so,the worst fears aroused by the Duke case and the recently filed second lawsuit are thoroughly justified.
     Has anyone  googled Jane Gallop recently?

[vegas]

Part 5 is up. Link below.

http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/12/sense-and-nonsense/

 He seems to be running out of things to say regarding KC.  He does however refer to another blog that seems to have much more to say and that link is provided as well.

http://tenured-radical.blogspot.com/2007/12/were-having-more-fun-than-barrel-of.html

He presents an opinion as fact - "KC misreads and as a result misreads with a vengence" . How come Harvard and Chicago never noticed that?  The presenting of an opinion as fact is common accross the blogs. What is the surprise about Dr Manly - she was in charge of Crystal as a Physician and did the physical ( I agree poorly) and took the swabs.  She did not stop by Crystal's room to say Hello.  I hope we have all the details from the evidence and not just allegations.
I had a post at Claire's blog up for about five hours.

[Sydney Carton]

   KC published a cogent reply(DIW,Dec .24) as a Christmas gift to Zimmerman , the group of 88,and other of his recent critics .I  cite only a few  extracts immediately pertinent to our immediate discussions here;but,of course,it is always a joy to watch him spin into extended action:

    nday, December 24, 2007
For the Record: Group of 88
 

This is a for-the-record post, prompted by a series of recent posts at another blog; I’ll leave it up here for a few days, without comments, and then fold it into the regular blog, below the glossary.


A central element of attempts to rehabilitate the Group of 88’s statement—which began with Cathy Davidson’s January 5, 2007 op-ed, continued with the Piot article, and has now the Robert Zimmerman blog postings—has been the suggestion that the Group of 88’s statement, unfairly, attracted attention.


In a recent comment, Prof. Zimmerman characterized a Liestoppers analysis as a “flogging” of the Group’s statement. This remark came in a post in which Prof. Zimmerman had hailed a new analysis of the statement by Prof. Brian Leiter, who contended that the Group of 88’s ad didn’t presume guilt by stating that something “happened” to Mangum...[Snip]

The insinuation of Davidson, Piot, Zimmerman, et al: 88 professors, and (allegedly, if, as it turns out, falsely) five academic departments, and ten academic programs issued a full-page ad at a time when the eyes of the local, state, and national media were on Durham—but they didn’t think anyone would notice the document.


Leave aside, for a moment, the all-but-unprecedented nature in the history of American higher education of 88 faculty members taking out a fullpage advertisement denouncing their own students. Leave aside, also, the fact that the ad represented a breathtaking violation of academic procedure—claiming the endorsement of academic departments even though these departments hadn’t voted on the question; and being funded, contrary to Duke rules, out of official departmental funds. And leave aside that both the Chronicle editorial page and defense lawyers almost immediately took notice of the document.


Those elements alone would have ensured that the ad would receive considerable attention.


Leave aside, also, the counterintuitive notion that 88 faculty members would take the time to affix their signatures to a statement that they hoped people wouldn’t see. And leave aside that Wahneema Lubiano solicited signatures by stating that the ad would be “about the lacrosse team incident,” not a generic commentary on racism or sexism at Duke or anywhere else.


What makes the Group revisionism so troubling is that it so directly contradicts the spring 2006 words and actions of the Group itself. Indeed, the Group did everything it could to ensure that people would pay attention to its statement.


After all, the Group members printed their statement in what they themselves considered as “the most easily seen venue on campus.”


They also committed themselves to collective action in the future, promising that they would be “turning up the volume” to advance their agenda.


For those who missed the statement in the Chronicle, the African-American Studies Program homepage linked to the Group’s handiwork for at least 132 days (through August 23, 2006) after the ad appeared. Since the program’s paying for the ad violated Duke rules, linking to the ad on the program’s official homepage likewise would seem to have been a violation of Duke standards.


The ad, moreover, wasn’t buried in a corner of the page: as seen below, the entire homepage was redesigned to highlight the ad, with the top third of the screen redone in solid black. “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?” appeared in white, accompanied by links to the ad and the list of signatories.




In addition to thanking the protesters for not waiting, the Group rushed the ad into print. In early April 2006, DNA test results that defense attorneys had promised would clear their clients were due any day. It was widely assumed that negative test results would—as Nifong’s office had promised in the March 23, 2006 NTO—end the case.


So Group leaders sprung into action. Then-AAAS chairman Charles Payne told other department chairs that they needed commit to endorsing the ad by 11am, April 4. (Payne has since left Duke for the University of Chicago; he gave no explanation for the rush.) Wahneema Lubiano gave potential signatories 48 hours to decide whether to sign; as the deadline for the April 6 Chronicle edition neared, she shortened the window of opportunity to six hours. It has been widely rumored that at least some Group members signed off without even seeing a final draft of the ad; the AAAS Department has, to date, refused to release earlier drafts of the ad or a list of when each signatory committed to support the document; Wahneema Lubiano, in fact, has JUST[my emphasis-SC ]released a statement that she will not release this material.


It’s not hard to see why Lubiano and Payne were so eager to get the ad into print quickly. Two days after the negative test results came back, Lubiano and Group member Thavolia Glymph were part of a panel that held things were “moving backwards on campus” because of the lack of DNA matches.


In short, the Group:

Rushed the ad into print, to increase the chances that it would be published while the case was still alive;
Placed it in what Group signatories themselves described as the most easily seen venue on campus;
Stated that five departments had officially endorsed the statement, a claim that proved to be false but that nonetheless gave the ad additional gravitas at the time;
Kept the statement available—in a high-profile fashion—for more than four months on an official program webpage.


I’ve no doubt that as they affixed their signatures to the document, most Group members didn’t think of what would happen when the lacrosse players or their attorneys noticed it. And I doubt they gave much thought to what would happen when those who challenged their race/class/gender worldview saw the document. Perhaps if they had done so, they would have been more careful about what they wrote.


 

   

[MarkRougemont]

  Yes, SC, KC's "cogent" reply opens another can of woop-ass on the group of 88.  The ad itself is difficult if not impossible to justify in light of the information that would come out later.  However, I continue to believe that only a few members of this so called "Group of 88" intended to maliciously revile the Lacrosse players and wanted to see innocent people rot in jail for a crime they did not commit.  Out of the 88 endorsers I can believe that a few did feel this way.  And perhaps a few are just to looney for their shoes, I have met some college faculty like that in my own experience.  Still, I firmly believe that the majority of this "group" endorsed this ad because of genuine concern over the issues of sexual assault and racism on campus, and to address the fear and outrage that some students had in response to the allegations and media reports that were coming out at this time.
  I also feel that the efforts to paint this "Group" with a broad brush of evil intent is overstated, it fits the pattern of a great conspiracy as shown in the latest filing referring to the totality of the defendants as a "consortium", a group conspiracy to railroad the accused.