I posted this as a comment on another blog. I would like to share it here. However, I did make mistakes and will make a mark when I am making a comment or changing them. Also:

TR=Tenured Radical
------------------------

Just to let people know: For those who think I am for athletics in front of academics, this is not true. I just feel athletics (just like the arts) are all important to the college experience. I was and continue to be shocked by professors who slam athletics.

And for those who think I am only about athletics, I point out ALL of my closest friends at my undergraduate institution did not care for athletics one bit. I also acted in the theatre two separate times*, once in a Shakespearian play (A Winter's Tale) in fact.

I disagree with many of TR's points; however, I would like to offer a defense. No matter if you disagree with her, I am of the impression that she does care deeply for her students. This is more than I can say for some of my teachers and professors through the years.

I would also like to thank TR for her kind words which I would like to add. While I am young (graduated from my undergraduate institution in December 2006 a semester early), I do have the insights of having just been a student at a college (which I feel not many posters have that insight on here).

When it became clear that the accused where completely innocent, (again, two of the accused had alibis and the police could not even place Reade Seligmann** at the party when they indicted him), I reflected on situations I had experienced and would experience in my future. If it is that easy to indict individuals and ruin their lives, how easy would it have been for me to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have my life turned upside down? I quite often am confused as someone else in my hometown. If this individual did something, could I be confused as him (or if he did something, someone identify me as the individual who committed the crime)?

Employers, by and large, are held liable for their employees’ actions while in an official capacity of their work. Lubiano sent the email out from her Duke account, professors signed the ad and it appeared in the Duke chronicle. Could Duke be held liable for their actions? Should the professors be held accountable?

As for the ad, I would like to use an imagining tactic TR used. Imagine you are one of the accused in April 2006. Virtually every main-stream media outlet has a story slanted in the accuser's favor. You have to endure countless ridicule from students who you do not even know and do not even know you personally. You have certain professors discussing this incident^ in a context that neither have anything to do with the class they are teaching and they are slanted as if the lacrosse players committed the crime. You have just witnessed the pathetic excuse of a rally where banners state things such as "castrate." Then the ad% appears thanking people for speaking up and not even once referring to the events as alleged. How would you feel? Some of these professors you do not even know personally and some of the professors may be ones you hold in high regard and you can talk to them about life in general. Some of those professors you even have for class! How would you feel?

Why have the group of 88 not even issued a "non-apology" apology. Something along the lines of "We were speaking of racial issues in general and not this specific incident. However, we should have taken more care in the language and the time of the placement of the advertisement." Acknowledge that some of their tactics were not-well thought out (as it seems some where).

Also, I do not consider this incident closed$. Some of the players and the accused may have some closure if Duke is actually reviewing their responses and learned something from their actions. Some of their actions and rhetoric since makes me less than encouraged.

How can Duke sweep under the rug the fact a dean told the lacrosse players "do not get lawyers involved?" How can Brodhead and Duke defend that he refused to even meet with the players and their parents to hear their side of events? Why does Duke feel it is ok for Brodhead to say these kids will be punished if they did what they are accused of but "what they did is bad enough?"

Newsflash: Students underage drink in college. Students go to strip clubs. Whatever you believe morally, hiring a stripper is not illegal.

TR has spoken to the mistake these players have made that night in having the party. However, I would like to point out:

1. Many of us did something absolutely horrendous and ill-advised in college. Hypothesizing what happened to them is somewhat deserved because they hosted a party are like saying it is ok what happened to Natalie Holloway because she made the bad decision to drink and then split off from the group.

2. By and large (as KC has pointed out), the only one to apologize in this whole fiasco is the 2006 Duke men's lacrosse team.
-----------------------------------

* In particular, at Heidelberg College alone. I have been in other plays in other capacities and have even worked sound for a production.

** Seligman changed to Seligmann. I should have done closer checks before commenting.

^added word

% changed add to ad

$ added the word incident and changed close to closed

The more you know...

One of the great mysteries of the whole Duke debacle is why people chose to be racist and not use this as a teaching moment?

Many people do not believe an eye for an eye works.

However, just look at these responses by Durham residents.

"The defendants should be prosecuted] whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past." Chan Hall, Chairman of Legislative Affairs Committee, Student Government of NCCU quoted in Newsweek May 1, 2006.

"Hopefully, justice is blind when it is time to carry out the proper punishment for what has been committed, and perhaps what has not been committed." PASTOR John Bennett quoted in the Herald-Sun October 16, 2006.

Any mention that these feelings are wrong? Apparently no one in the media thought or Duke academia thought so.

The New Black Panthers threatened Colin Finnerty as he walked in the courthouse for an early trial hearing. Not only was nothing done, the NBP were allowed in the courtroom. Does anyone else find this crazy? Apparently, nobody in the media or Duke acadamia thought so.

Martin Luther King Jr. said "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." Instead of the NAACP and academia use this as a "See, this is what we mean about racism. Now you know how we feel and how critical it is to fight against this corrupt system." No, the acadamia released a listening ad which can be interpreted as not endorsing due process. No, we see the North Carolina NAACP go against tradition of supporting change of venue motions for cases full of race hatred. No, the North Carolina NAACP had a wild manifesto making wild charges against the accused which was still up EVEN AFTER the lacrosse players were declared innocent.

And the mainstream media immediately put the accused and the people who wanted due process to play out on the defensive. Of course the fall out would be racist letters and threats made against African-Americans.

Let me make this perfectly clear: this is a horrible tactic and I never would do such a thing nor encourage individuals to do this. However, how can anyone think individuals would not resort to this emotional-filled tactic when the defenders of this false-accuser resorted to threats and emotion-filled protests?

It is just like the news commentators who blasted the defense attorneys for some of their public relations tactics of releasing (factual) information to try to win public opinion when the DA went public with very charged (and false) rhetoric.

There are many of us who wonder why few in the federal government have pushed for a federal investigation; yet, there were federal, state, and local lawmakers screaming at the top of their lungs for "justice to be done."

And for those who believe these guys were saved by a high-priced team of lawyers, I would like to point out public perception largely favored the (false) accuser until Christmas-time last year when we found out Meehan and Nifong conspired to cover-up evidence. Only when we learned a lawyer locked himself into a room and taught himself about DNA and went through the discovery with a fine-tooth comb did the case start to unravel.

This hypocrisy is not going to lead to a better society were people are going to get along with one another. If the African-American and the academic community want to sit (for the most part) idly by why all this takes place, why do you think we should care about other injustices?

Logos, Pathos and Ethos

These three words are examined by Aristotle in his book Rhetoric. Last fall, when I was an undergraduate at Heidelberg College, I completed an analysis of six speeches using the Neo-Aristotelian method and specifically the use of Pathos.

A quick overview of the three words in terms of rhetoric:

Logos: the reasoning, logic a speaker uses

Ethos: The character or disposition of a speaker

Pathos: The use of emotion in speech (compassion, pity, etc...)


Blogs are starting to be a critical source of news and information. However, as with anyone, the credibility (ethos) of writing in a blog comes into question (as well as it should be because even I have a blog!).

Newspapers are taking a hit from the internet; and more specifically, the blogosphere. But the "Newspaper of Record" has their own debacles to blame for their decreasing numbers:

The Wilson/Glater article, as in previous Times coverage:

• neglects to mention that Nifong's early comments on the case almost certainly violated Rules 3.8(f) of North Carolina's Code of Professional Responsibility, which forbids prosecutors from making extrajudicial comments that have "a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." Few prosecutors in history have publicized their case and condemned potential defendants as egregiously as Nifong did. He was successful enough that his relentlessly repeated—and almost certainly false—accusation of racial rape has defined this case and The Times' coverage of it to this day.
• declines to state that Nifong's pre-indictment refusal to meet with defense lawyers who claimed to possess evidence of Reade Seligmann's innocence violated two other sections of Rule 3.8, comments 1 and 2. The first comment says that "a prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate . . . This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice"; the second holds that "a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused." Nifong's action was about as outrageous an abuse of power as any prosecutor can exercise. Think of one of your own children facing false indictment and a prosecutor refusing even to look at evidence proving their innocence.
• never explains that Nifong explicitly ordered Durham police officers to violate their own department's procedures regarding eyewitness identifications—an extraordinary action for any district attorney to take. The authors vaguely suggest that the lineup violated "generally accepted guidelines," not revealing the source for these guidelines.

However, the Duke chronicle has been amazing in their coverage and offering insight. But if I were to do a paper on the Duke case, which sources would be held in higher regard, The Duke Chronicle or the New York Times? In this regard, newspapers should largely blame themselves for less quality in news reporting. My kingdom for a Woodward and Bernstein.

In rhetoric, pathos and ethos have their importance (in my reports, I found that civilizing values play very important roles in a speech). However, how important are first impressions? This study found that people make a decision in less than a second about the quality of a web site. So, are people judging their beliefs about a blog because of logos (logic) or the aesthetics, word of mouth (ethos), or the emotions (pathos) created? We should all be cautioned to use a little less emotion and the credibility of the individual and use more logic.

Whether or not you agree with KC Johnson about his blog, he clearly plays on people's emotions. However, he did have to counteract emotions by some of those in Durham (Pg. 2). And every source of the media should be examined; do not assume one medium is better than another.

Fact was, in the Duke lacrosse case, Nifong early on stated that "innocent people do not need lawyers." We also knew very early on about conflicting stories by the (false accuser), she identified an individual as definitely being at the party that night when in fact he was with his girlfriend in another city, and we knew there was not any DNA of the accused found on the woman. Did anyone stop and logically think this through?

I never said early on I thought the boys were innocent; however, I did state that I have questions. News coverage and the facts did not always gel.

Email attacks

I, in no way, shape or form, support sending racist and hateful emails to blog owners, faculty at a college, or anyone. KC Johnson's blog, while well done, may have well deserved this response on a blog

2)Racist Hate Mail: Blogging and Bigotry: Many Duke faculty have received harassing, sometimes threatening anonymous e-mails and phone calls in connection with the Duke lacrosse case. But the hatemongers have reserved a special place for Duke’s African-American faculty; they’ve been flooded with an astonishing amount of disgusting racist hate mail and even death threats. Distinguished Duke faculty mainstays like Wahneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, Paula McClain, and Kerry Haynie have been among the targets of these attacks. In fairness, Johnson himself never uses such vile racist language, but he has never spoken out against it, and it’s clear that many of these anonymous e-mailers are enthusiastic readers of his blog. We offer here a compendium of some of these hate e-mails and death threats with the full addresses concealed for legal reasons. Warning: these messages use gross, disgusting language.

Maybe KC should have said something. But can we be so sure the emails came from "blog hooligans." Also, people anonymously sending emails are low. But, should professors be held to a higher standard? What about this little tid-bit from a former Duke professor (This is from KC Johnson's blog. Scroll down to number one under the subheading of articles/faculty publications):

1) Houston Baker, e-mail, December 31, 2006. The mother of a former lacrosse player e-mailed former Group of 88 leader Baker (now at Vanderbilt) laying out the new developments in the case, and asking if he would reconsider his decision to sign the Group’s statement. His complete response:

"LIES! You are just a provacateur [sic] on a happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! You know you are in search of sympaathy [sic] for young white guys who beat up a gay man [sic] in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived like “a bunch of farm animals” near campus.

I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in .... umhappy [sic] new year to you ... and forgive me if your [sic] really are, quite sadly, mother of a 'farm animal.'"

Should professors be held to a higher standard in the case of the above email? Should professors be held to a higher standard to hold due process and not jump to conclusions?

Maybe KC Johnson should have made a post and ask that his readers not send racist and vile emails to professor. But you have to ask, would the effort be fruitless? If I really wanted to send a vile, vulgar, or racist email to someone (which I have not, by the way); do you think a plea from KC Johnson would stop me?

School girl, 10,arrested for a steak knife in lunch

A girl was given a steak knife with her lunch. School officials tried to reach her parents to inform them of this. After they could not be reached, they called authorities.

First off, I am pretty sure that they have the contact information for the parents at work. Even if the number is to only be used in emergencies, don't you think "I am about to have your daughter arrested" is worthy of an emergency.

Tell the parents that their daughter cannot have a knife in school and take it away. Tell them they must cut the steak up before giving it to their daughter. But for heaven's sake, do not arrest the girl and have her face felony charges.

Should not a red flag go up when the sheriff's office making sure the article clearly explains that they are required to act when the school calls and informs them of this?

Response to Claire Potter's Blog where she muses about the "Group of 88" Ad

My email address is mlofton@kent.edu, if you would like to respond not in your blog. Just to let you know.

I am not attacking you or the people who blog on here. I would like to know what I did to deserve my comments being deleted.

It is honest questions. I do not care who did the scholarship. I also recognize there are great points of view in "queer and minority studies." However, there are also professors who put out utter filth that is unreadable. If (and when) they are interpreted a certain way, sometimes professors defend their work with "you are a racist." Is it too much to ask that professors (such as students who complete a dissertation) to defend their work?

As for Lubiano, I have some issues. As a taxpayer of the federal government who in turn gives money to academic institutions, excuse me for asking if those funds may have been misappropriated. They might not have been.

However, people are trying to "spin" the article as speaking out against racism and not this specific incident. But KC Johnson has reported that Lubiano put this explanation of the ad in her email http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/09/lubianos-cover-e-mail.html

It clearly states "African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident." With this revelation, I have two questions

1). How can someone claim this is about the bigger picture of racism and not this one incident?

2). How can one not assume from that statement that the department did not pay for the ad? And if the ad was paid for by the department, explain to me how this was not misappropriation of funds.

3). As someone who claims herself as radical (civil rights and due process, which us "conservatives" are routinely slammed for supposedly not respecting), why do you continue to defend an ad which prejudges individuals without a jury trial?

I have not attacked anyone in my following comment. I would appreciate a response. Susan at 11:07 stated "Thanks for this, TR. There is, I think, a difference between "baiting" and "challenging". When someone writes something that you think is misguided, wrong, or even dangerous, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to address those things."

I am not saying you are wrong, I am challenging your assertions.

I totally agree with your right to censor racist or vile posts. However, it is hard to take some Duke professors seriously when they host a seminar entitled "Shut Up and Teach," where they argue they are trying to be censored. Yet, they did not allow audio recording or questions from those who oppose their views.

And you censor non-attacking posts. How is that not irony from a person in the academic field?

One last comment, you said you counted Lubiano as a friend. However, I feel these three completely falsely accused individuals have to be protected by those who continue to say anything less than "they are innocent." I also feel it is the right to correct people (such as Nifong on the witness stand at his ethics and criminal trial) who call Crystal Gail Magnum is a victim. She is not, she lied, the men were innocent (I would also like to point out that these men were also the only one's during this fiasco to apologize for their actions).

I am currently a student (client) if you will, and plan on working in intercollegiate athletics all my life as a sports information director (I know, do nothing for the school and am not intellectual whatsoever). I feel the right to defend what so many have slandered and made false statements about, intercollegiate athletics.

If she emails me and I get a response (I doubt my comment will be posted), I will post it here with her permission.

censorship and racism

I am not going to link over to the tenured-radical sight as apparently it is illegal (in her eyes), but as my post below shows, I have some questions. I did not attack anyone; I just want to know if there was a 1). Investigation into whether they were misuse of quoted and/or misappropriation of departmental funds and if there was 2). Was someone held accountable?

I cannot fathom the whole censorship of comments on a blog. If it is attacking or racist, etc..., I have no problem with the delete button, especially by academics. They are the supposed champions of free speech. Maybe they should add for themselves and their agenda. I posted those comments and they were deleted. Am I given an explanation? No.

At the beginning of this year, some professors at Duke held a forum entitled "Shut up and Teach." At the forum, all unauthorized video recordings and questions from media and/or bloggers were not allowed. Does anyone else find the irony in professors trying to quiet a group that is trying to report on said professors who are protesting because they claim they are being censored?

I know I have no comments, but I will never delete comments with differing views, just racist or vile comments.

Also, I really would like to hear thoughts on how or if this case would have been treated differently if everything was the same except 1) The accuser was white, 2) the accused black. and 3) the minority professors of the "gang of 88" were white.

My response to Claire Potter

In case it is deleted, here it is:

Obviously, your interpretation and mine are different. However, I do want to ask these questions not about the interpretation, but the advertisement itself.

1. If I was a student who attended a forum and took down notes (not recordings) of the speakers, and later used them (whether it is a paper or an ad) without attributing no a name or event, would I not be turned in for plagiarism? How can a professor, none the less, get away with this?

2. Is it not appropriate when using someone's quotes (or in this case paraphrases of quotes) to ask if they are used in the right context and portray the intentions of the speaker? Was Lubiano given permission to use these quotes?

3. Where was the proof that there was a vote for DEPARTMENTS to endorse the advertisement? If I was a part of one of those departments and see that they had "endorsed" the ad without my input, I would be very angry.

4. How was the full page advertisement paid for? If the ad was paid for by departmental funds, is that not misappropriation? And if you say it is not, why is it not?

I have problems with the advertisement for these reasons. I think these allegations alone might be cause for sever reprimand, if not dismissal, of Lubiano.

As for some Duke professor's hatred for sports, why? I am not for putting in academics in front of athletics, but do you realize the impact and money athletics bring in to colleges? The athletic web site is a big recruiting tool for colleges. At many division III universities, the number involved in intramurals and athletics outnumber those who are not. Athletics are vital to college and universities, and in fact many of these professors at Duke might not be there if not for the success of the basketball team.

Like it or not, athletics is VITAL to the vast majority of universities.

Just look what it did for George Mason:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2006-05-17-george-mason-future_x.htm

They won by 23!

Before I forget, I would like to give a shout to the Kent State women's basketball team, who defeated Northern Arizona last night 76-53

Kowalska notched a double-double, while Bennett added 14 points, five boards and four assists. Brinkman came off the (short) bench and added eight points and 11(!) rebounds.

I knew this team had a lot of heart. Let's up the rock the Rams (Rhode Island) on Saturday!

Three unindicted lacrosse players going after Duke

I was reading along and found this little article

Someone's going to pay...

Duke's response as in the article:

"(T)his suit is misdirected against the university. Duke University reasonably relied on the statements of a prosecutor whose path of destruction could be stopped only by the North Carolina Attorney General," David Jarmul, a Duke spokesman, said in the statement. "Duke made some mistakes when the allegations first surfaced in the spring of 2006. The cause of any harm felt by the players, however, clearly lies with parties other than Duke."

First off, you had a dean which told players to (paraphrase): cooperate with police and not get lawyers involved. You had a president in Brodhead who refused to meet with the players and their families. They might be able to hide behind the "Duke University reasonably relied on the statements of a prosecutor whose path of destruction could be stopped only by the North Carolina Attorney General" if not for some of the statements of the DA. Why did no one raise red flags when he asserted the players were "hiding behind a blue wall of silence," when in fact they were not? Why did not red flags go up when Nifong stated (paraphrase), why would they need a lawyer if the were innocent?"

Also, how can they not be held liable for the acts of the group of 88? Why has there not been an investigation of the advertisement? Who paid for the ad in the Duke newspaper? All signs point to departmental funds being used to pay for the ad. Is that not misappropriation of funds? Lubiano claims not only individuals, but also departments, endorsed the ad. Did anybody investigate (0ther than KC Johnson) when/if there was a vote to endorse the ad?

The common argument, that the ad did not speak of this case specifically but racism in general, does not hold water. The original email subject, when it was being spread around, specifically stated that this is in response to this incident. KC Johnson, in Until Proven Innocent, stated that the faculty and staff wanted the season canceled and the lacrosse coach fired immediately (with little to no evidence present and shortly after the allegations). One specific professor, Houston Baker (who is African-American), wanted the lacrosse team expelled immediately. One has to wonder his response if the accused were black and the accuser white?

I love Duke, and I am a diehard Duke fan. However, on thedevilsden.com, some have been labeled as "wanting to take down Duke" if you support litigation against the university. I do not want to see the university go down; however, they must be held responsible. I am labeled as uncaring because I did not attend Duke (heaven forbid I went to a college that had a major that I am interested in: I could have majored in journalism, but I was not sure what exactly what I wanted to do before college except I wanted to be involved in intercollegiate athletes). However, if these actions occurred at my alma mater (Heidelberg) or my current school (Kent State), rest assured I would make my voice heard; the school would not necessarily like what I say.

I am sorry for Duke; however, because they had to be the scapegoat for a widely radical socialist/communist theories being imbedded in college and universities all over the country.

Coaches

Give a coach a chance.

Coaches, no matter at what level, should be given four or five years to try and turn around a team. Duke football had been coached by Ted Roof for four season, but he was fired after four wins in four seasons. I am fine with this decision, Duke was going nowhere.

However, give coaches a chance. Many wanted him fired before the season, or shortly after the first game debacle of the season (or this). Now look, he very well could end up AFC coach of the year (he currently has a 9-5 record and is a Tennessee loss OR Cleveland win away from the playoffs, Cleveland just beat Buffalo and Denver lost earlier this week).

No one wants to lose, but the opening game embarrassment may have been a rally point for the team. Not all losses are the same, some are not bad.

Also, I seem to remember famed basketball coach Dean Smith twice was hung in effigy twice in his first five years at the school. He ended his career with 879 wins, the most in NCAA men's basketball history (he has since been passed by Bob Knight). Think that was the right decision not to fire Smith?

Im all for reevaluating a coach and I am not suggesting you cannot fire a coach after one season.

Duke Lacrosse Case

I long have been following the Duke lacrosse case and it worries me: it worries me because I just recently received my Bachelor of Science degree (majoring in sports management with a public relations track and communication) and currently in college for my masters in sports administration.

I look over my education I have received and I am currently engaged in and I do not feel indoctrination. I have had wonderful professors, even some whose political views are greatly against mine, but these views were not forced on me.

Back to the original intent of this post. I have pondered many questions:

1. How could the justice system go so very wrong? It seems as if there were numerous people that would have stepped in (or stayed out, i.e. Nancy Grace, Mike Nifong, Patrick Baker, Bill Bell, Richard Brodhead, the gang of 88, Tara Levicy...). Could not someone have said "Hold on, wait a minute?"

2. Is it so wrong to be a white male? In EVERY race, there are people who are racist against someone that are of another ethnicity. However, the former district attorney in Durham, Michael Nifong, exploited the fact three lacrosse players were white and being accused by a woman that is black. Many exploited this narrative. However, would there have been this much media attention if three black men were accused by a white woman?

Next, if the races were reversed in this case and a DA exploited three accused black men to win reelection with little or no evidence, would it A. Take the Department of Justice so long to show an interest and then B. Not get involved in a case with civil rights violations.

3. Fans in rivalries do some very outlandish acts. Let’s say team A and B are rivals and B has a successful basketball team. A woman who attends school A sees basketball players who attend school B at a bar. Let's say a fight breaks out at said bar. What if the woman thinks to herself, "Hey, I will accuse the players of assault?" If the woman makes false allegations, she could affect the team for one or multiple games, especially if the faculty rush to judgment like they did at Duke (see 4).

It might seem far-fetched, but could it happen? If someone read KC Johnson's "Innocent until Proven Guilty" with no knowledge about the Duke case, they might swear it is fiction and never could happen. But it did...

4. Why is faculty so anti sport? At some universities, professors are so anti athletics, they would be perfectly fine if they were done away with. Yes, there are faults to athletics and the NCAA, but success in sports helps enrollment

According to the USA Today Article:
"...the NCAA tournament run has afforded a national profile to the heretofore lesser-known school, and there are signs of its impact — a higher yield (percentage of accepted students who enroll), twice as many prospective students taking tours, $1 million spent on GMU's Final Four stuff."

And increased exposure:
"Burke Magnus, who schedules games for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, says he expects Mason on his schedules four or five times next season. He says he is in talks with GMU and Duke about a Dec. 9 game at Duke."

5. Say whatever about the interpretation of the gang of 88's listening ad, there is a key point I have not seen debated. In the ad, Duke faculty member Wahneema Lubiano has quotes which she herself has admitted were paraphrases of anonymous persons.

So, she passes them off as quotes when in fact they are paraphrases. Also, they are anonymous so did she get permission to use them? Did she ask the participants to confirm she is using the "quotes" in context? Were the speakers who gave these "quotes" Duke students?

If I used these "quotes" in such a reckless way, I would get in serious trouble from my university for plagiarism. However, faculty members get a free pass?