As the presumed “facts” initially associated with the Duke lacrosse case have melted away, those on campus who aggressively condemned the lacrosse players have found themselves in an uncomfortable position. While a few columnists (such as David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof) have revised their opinions in light of the Coleman Committee report and the recently released prosecution documents, no one at Duke has publicly done so. A small minority have ignored the new material, and even leveled new charges against the lacrosse players. But most still condemn the lacrosse players, though now with a focus on issues relating to alcohol—acting as if their earlier critiques, which centered on allegations of the players’ alleged racism or sexism, or insinuations about the likelihood of rape, never occurred. This shifting of the goalposts is at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst shameful.
Some of the race-baiting jargon used by the Professor Houston Baker and supported by 15 professors of African-American studies is not capable of parody since it is so classic:
You seem not to understand that the tone of that letter assumes a lofty and condescending position of White authority over the insufficiencies of minority reason, thereby exemplifying one of the problems at Duke. The offense that Professor Baker might justifiably take to this display of paternalistic rhetoric is shared by those of us who search for racial harmony in our society.
Whatever the outcome of the criminal investigation of the rape of a Black woman college student by members of Duke’s lacrosse team, the leadership of your university is faced with a greater, underlying dilemma. Elite, higher education continues to operate behind a shield, sometimes of silence, sometimes of evasion, concealing its contributions to a social order defined by inequities and racial preferences.
We all know and might easily document the histories of exploitation, divestment, enslavement, disenfranchisement, and gentrification that undergird the endowments and privileges of our prestigious institutions of higher learning. Further, the topography of institutions like Duke, Columbia, the University of Chicago, Yale, the University of Southern California, the University of Pennsylvania, in close proximity to less advantaged Black and minority communities, underscores the quasi-colonial nature of their relationship to the under-privileged.
This is right out of the grievance industry playbook and it works every time because the nuclear weapon of these race hustlers is so terrifying to the people who head these universities that all they can do is grab their ankles and bend over.
It puts me in mind of the Irtan-Iraq war; they both deserve to lose.
Read the whole thing... (including the pitiful response by Ralph Luker)
It sucks! Duke joined the many racist and sexist political groups attacking these boys, and some of Dukes own professors joined the attacking wolves.
Ever since every sexist and racist group descended onto Duke to publicly condemn these boys, I went into over drive trying to make people consider that these boys wouldn't have submitted to DNA testing if they were guilty, but since the 1st DNA evidence came back, I became more persistent and met equally persistent feminist (i.e. feministing, Rachael’s Tavern, Alas a blog, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Justice4Sisters, Hazel8500 etc...) who adamantly insist these boys are guilty for no other reason than because a "woman" (i.e. the stripper) claims it so.
I've noticed since then that most of feminist blogs have fallen silent as new evidence suggests that the stripper's claim to be false.
However, just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement where in the corner Mike Nifong is hunched over clutching this dead case like “Gulum” (movie: Lord of the Rings) clutches the “ring of power”.
A great place to view that unbiased facts is:
“If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys. In Nifong's case - stupid rich white guys with transparent political agendas.”
I love cherry pie, but I don't like cherry picking. Some people are trying to claim that the defense attorneys are cherry picking, but I don’t see it.
But much of the information the DA leaked wasn't so much cherry picked as it was artificially made by him personally (i.e. date rape drug, his reasoning of no DNA match, etc...).
Maybe Nifong is just clumsy and trying to make a pie, which would explain why he has egg on his face.
Post a Comment