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?