H88 Comes to University of ILL

The News-Gazette has listed some events   that the University of Clout will be offering under its generously-named "Inclusive Illinois" Initiative, regarding the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Apart from the list having a rather one-sided nature to seriously be taken as "inclusive," there is another feature of note.

One of the guest lectures is Thavolia Glymph, described here as simply "an author. However, Glymph is also a member of the Duke University faculty . A look at her publication shows a large block of no publications between 2003 and 2008. This is unfair because it does not show a couple of very important publications in her position as a member of Duke during 2006. 

In addition to being a cosigner of the infamous "Group of 88" libellous, racially-motivated,  and politically-correct prejudgement statement  thanking protesters for making noise about what happened to "this young woman" (who is now awaiting trial for murder) and carrying signs saying "castrate" and "confess" during the now-notorious Duke University Rape Hoax. Of course, Glymph also signed the following so-called "Clarifying Statement" which did nothing to clarify anything, only to falsely claim that the original statement had nothing to do with the lacrosse players (now thoroughly discredited since the letter's creator, Waheema Lubiano stated in writing that the statement was about "the lacrosse team incident."

But most horrific and damning was Glymph's final willingness to shed any previous or future attempts to disguise her own (or anyone else in the Group of H88) assumption of guilt of the lacrosse players. The DNA returns, which the Blagojevich of Law, disgraced and disbarred attorney Mike Nifong conspired to hide were eventually revealed to exonerate the players, Glymph complained,"we have been moving backwards." We can sympathize with her-it would be pretty hard to falsely accuse your own students of rape based upon their race and gender if the DNA is exculpatory, and the DA you supported is exposed as a fraud and a liar.

Nonetheless, that the U of ILL would consider Thavolia Glymph to come on taxpayer money to represent  the "inclusiveness" of Illinois, says precious little good about our state or University (not that there is much left to harm). Nor does it give the appropriate level of importance to a document such as the Emancipation Proclamation, when one of their participants was so, and continues to be, rabid about shredding the Constitution and the rights therein to her own student body.

Posted by Hound No. 2

Duke just barely beat out Butler, and Coach K and his players are to be congratulated. Perhaps this will make up for the rather dismal weak Duke brought upon itself prior:

It has not been a good week for Duke. Now that April is here, the so-called Sexual Assault Awareness month, all eyes have turned to the place where the college-level crime of the decade occurred. A crime committed by Duke, its faculty, president, and the score of media toads who latched on to a rogue prosecutor.

While visiting the Volokh Conspiracy, we saw Professor Eugene had posted about Duke’s Women Center’s cancellation of the a pro-life display at the women’s center. The rationale for the censorship was that there was too much backlash (from whom?).

Within moments, the incident was all over the blogspherer. FIRE immediately started burning, DIW had picked up, and so had Erin O’Conner over at Critical Mass to name just a few. It disappointed us, however, that the Chronicle has yet to make any mention of the story. We must wonder if Schoenfeld has a red phone in the Chronicle editor’s office to make sure that stories like these are quickly buried or ignored.

Duke reversed itself within 24 hours (a record for the institution! ), accompanied by Ada Gregory‘s, the head of the Women’s Center, generously-described apology.

We long-memoried mastiffs are no strangers to the name or role of Ada Gregory. Lest we forget (and believe us, we will not), this is the same Ada Gregory, who without explanation or rational, proceeded to succinctly describe the Women’s Center’s mission at the university with a blatantly slanderous and misandry-filled publication. IN it, she lambasted the intelligence of male Duke students, as "manipulative", and claiming that the higher the IQ, the more successful they are at rape. A similar half-hearted mea culpa (where she blamed the quote as "out of context" (?!)) came from her office by the end of the week.

In her most recent letter, she references Duke complete reversal concerning the actions of her Center, and goes on to Claim that actions had taken place to “ensure that ….does not happen again.” Given Gregory’s pedigree regarding open, honest dialogue (not to mention Duke on a whole), we can only believe her assurances if those said steps include her immediate resignation, and self-imposed exile from institutional office.

-In other Duke News, Gary Lombard, was fond guilty.

-Finally, Duke has settled with Mike Pressler for its failure to reign in the rabid ravings of the Flying Squirrel. If Duke, was actually sincere in this claim, then we fail to understand why there was a need for a libel lawsuit and why Duke settled. If Duke and Burness held and continue to hold Pressler in such high esteem, then why was Burness making disparaging remarks in the first place? Two possible answers present themselves:

Duke is lying and is now trying to do damage control in the face of Duke’s settlement (which is a legal term for “we were wrong, we lost, but we are too cowardly to admit it.”).

-Duke on the whole is sincere, and these highly insulting comments were either Burness' own grudges or they fostered on him by specific higher eidolons in the Duke hierarchy, worried that the evidence presentation process would produce less savory bits of information about specific Duke administrators' going-ons.

Either way, it as several bloggers have noted, does not bode well for Duke and its future.

Posted by Hound No. 2

Duke under Watch

Last week we noticed an interesting little tidbit coming from Wonderland: although buried (intentional?) in the bottom of the Chronicle story, Duke has been put on monitoring status by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

From the Story:

it [Duke] has not “demonstrated that its institutional effectiveness, with regard to student learning outcomes, have occurred broadly in undergraduate and graduate programs [emphasis added],” according to a letter written to Duke by SACS.

Though the accreditation process has been approved already, those of with noses keener than others can sniff between the lines.

While not directly, the Lacrosse Hoax is still having a subliminal effect on Duke. The revelation during the case that many of the involved faculty had little or no claim to academic prominence (of meaning, that is. Just because, for example, Michael Hardt consorts with criminals such as Antonio Negri, or Eduardo Bonna-Silva becomes well known for MEChA-nized hate speech, does not vault them into the annals of legitimate academics). This scrutiny on major institutions demonstrates a far more reaching concern on what qualifies as legitimate research, a mantra originally limited to observers of the case and education reform groups,

Interesting.

Posted by Hound No. 2

Strong Hull FIREs back

Duke professor Gary Hull authored recently "Muhammad: The 'Banned' Images," a critique of the Yale U Press' prostration to political correctness by censoring Jyette Klausen's "Pictures that Shocked the World." So monstrous this odious censorship that even the reliable shills at the AAUP condemned the move. According to the press release on FIRE (no pun intended. This time), the book by Hull is "A defiance against the censors, terror-mongers, and their western appeasers." The statement against the censorship that Hull wrote about has been echoed by big time names including prominent members of FIRE, Nadine Strossen, Cary Nelson, and Eugene Volokh.



The banning of the photos from the Klausen book by the YUPpies was extraordinary, but by no means surprising. Rather, simply another example of the further degradation of the higher ed.



What is also quite extraordinary is the institution one where one my find Professor Hull:





Wonderland.



We find a professor and director of a " program for values and ethics in the marketplace" (that is "values and ethics in the marketplace," not Duke, which has neither) here should take up the banner uplifting. Yet we fear for him considering the actions already taken against Klausen. We can already imagine Miriam Kooke frothing as Lubiano sharpens her claws to make sure, in the spirit of Wiegman, that Hull never again strays from the template.



Posted by Hound No 2

Duke of Puke

Following on the heels of No. 4, back over at Duke, (which attracts sexual assault scandals as much as Vin Diesel attracts photo-phobic, flaying alien predators), yet another scandal erupts with all the outrage as the lacrosse scandal.



Hahahahahahahhahahahaha.




Not.



In the Duke's continued resemblance of some Greek tragedy, it appears that the title should not be Oedipus Rex or Oedipus at Colonus, but more aptly named Pediphilius Text or Pediphilus at the Colon.

As the Chronicle reports, Frank Lombard, a Duke official and associate director for the Duke Center for Health policy was arrested for prostituting children for sex. Specifically, his own adopted son.

Congratulations to Duke University which has finally broken a long held monopoly on statutory rape by groups such as the AFT and NEA.

Online chatting sessions have been cited that Lombard was interested in incestuous relationships with children.

What is the major story behind this? Answer: Lombard is gay and his adopted son is black. Black rape at Duke? Surely Houston Baker and Karla F(ulla)C(rap) Halloway are protesting this one. Surely Lombard is "a farm animal" and Halloway has written another "Coda," Lubiano has called Lombard "a perfect offender."

A good example of the Duke University outrage over Lombard's actions can be heard here.

Just as Katie Rousse got shafted by Duke officials (well, in a different sense than Lombard's son got shafted), the silence behind Lombard's actions has been quite telling. The two events-the Jermaine Burch rape of Rousse and now Lombard have shown no similarities between the response from them and the rush to judgement and vitriolic hate speech and actions that came out of the media, faculty, administration, and other academic bastions of lunacy across the country during the Lacrosse Hoax.

Renegade professor Mike Adams over at Townhall.com has Lombard's wish list off of amazon, which as he very effectively demonstrates, is quite telling. The Free Republic and World Net Daily both are frothing at the mouth that the media, which went hog-wild over the lacrosse allegations has been silent up to now. We Hounds have checked and even the Foxes have been mum.

The most important question to ask at this point is how long Brodhead et al. have known about this? Could be a Heidi Hurd moment for Duke...

Posted by Hound No. 2

Over at Duke, it seems that the Flying Squirrel is not the only one given to flight. Now it is the Water Buffalo's turn says the Chronicle. Hackney lackey Moneta is off to Croatia to ostensibly study "how Duke provides student services and come back with new ideas."

All the more power to him, we say. There may be something for him to learn in a former USSR holding. After all, Moneta, Brodhead, et al. showed the nation already that their sense of civil rights and due process in the "student services" they provide would have made Stalin proud.

As commentators on the Chronicle board point out, the timing is suspicious. With the lawsuits against Duke now underway, it cannot look well for Duke when the most egregious of its offenders (first Baker to Vanderbilt, Curtis is now gone, Lubiano in Europe) in a long string are going away from the place where they perched and pecked their vitriol. We wonder if indeed Moneta must take the stand at some point, if he will come back. For us watching, this can only be a taciturn admission of guilt by Moneta, if not by Duke entirely.

In something that can only be described as comedy (similar to Moneta's awe-inspiring capitulation to the obvious during the Penn State affair when he declared "all speech is free") Moneta describes his self-imposed ostracising in his typical self-congratulatory, bureaucratic blather: "I'm not going in with a parochial view that the way we do things is the best way to do things or the only way to do things." We are glad you think so. As you have demonstrated at just about every academic institution that takes pity on you, we know that your "way of doing things" are most certainly not "the best way."

Meanwhile, in typical Duke fashion, Moneta's role will be filled by someone just as vile as him. Just as useful as replacing dead light bulbs with dead rats, Moneta will be covered by Sue Wasiolek. Given her fair share of contributions to screw over the students at Duke ala Wes Covington, we are just as confident as she is more than capable of taking up Moneta's "responsibilities" to ensure that no Duke student is treated fairly.

In closing, we address our question to Wasiolek: Did you also recommend to Larry before he leaves that he should also not hire lawyers? He may need them soon. And in the same line, you are also right, Dean Sue. You, we think, are going to find your "attention diverted" quite a bit in the near future.

Posted by Hound No. 2

Spinnin it Well

In an extremely appalling and unbelievable (until you remember this is the UI) blog entry from writers Jo Sanger & Ross Wantland, the continued rallying for now-established fabricator, liar, and almost perjurer, Crystal Mangum has been shown to be alive and well. The blog, which also appears in the local underground, emo-driven, local "talent"-only ersatz drivel known as the "Buzz" when read, was so full of distortions, inaccuracies, and all-out falsehoods, one could only rank the ramblings of the writers with the screed of Nifong himself. Let us look at each section and expose the distortions. WARNING! This is somewhat LONG (because there are MANY).



The alleged victim was continually described simply as a stripper or as the “accuser.” The young men on the other hand, were seen in three 60 Minutes interviews together or with their families. It was clear – these boys were “our boys” in the public eye, while the alleged victim was not.

Not even out of the first paragraph and already this is blatantly false. First off, the Ed Bradley interview of the did not appear until October of 2006. What were they referred to that point? "Our boys?" Hardly: From Nancy Grace ("gang rapists") Mike Nifong ("hooligans") , anti-Semitic, racist Houston Baker ("farm animals") and so on.

Or how about the NC Carolina equivalent of the "independent" media Buzz-like trash, the Independent Weekly which describes them as "crass" goes on to quote Peter Wood, rabid leftist Duke professor as "arrogant, callous, dismissive--you could almost say openly hostile." (The claims by Wood and IW were later discredited by a committee headed by Prof. James Coleman.)

Samina Khanna perhaps the worst in the News & Observer made statements about the lacrosse players not even close to accurate (even while the rest of the press could claim Nifong's with holdings at fault). No Khanna went even farther to withhold information about Mangum. This includes Kim Roberts (the other stripper who, unlike Mangum, was sober and not high during the event) who called Mangum's account "a crock".

What about Drape, who actually did support the players in the New York Times. Did they stand by "our boys" as the writers say? I'm sure Duff Wilson, who Bill Keller replaced him with could answer that.

Nor do the authors, who in the second section fall into the Richard Brodhead, "Whatever they did is bad enough..." faux attitude, make any reference to Kim Curtis, who engaged in capricious grading against the non-accused players, or Wendy Murphy (a favorite of Grace) who made malicious lies, including but not limited to refusal to submit to DNA tests or to talk to prosecutors. In truth, all team members submitted to at least two tests by the time Mangum finally got around to deciding (finally) on which of the three had "raped" her. Wantland and Sanger should also look at comments made by hack Irvin Joyner or Rev. Barber. Yet worst of all, examine the way Duke's own faculty treated "our boys" in their anonymous source-based add about protesters calling for castration, burning down buildings, and worse, and-"thanking them for not waiting" and to hell with due process and presumption of innocence. None of course means anything to Sanger nor Wantland, who are "not legal experts" (the first statement they make that is true. And the last).

Ironically, who do they point to as their legal source? Left-wing commentator/operator Susan Estrich who originally criticized the slamming of Mangum by the defense, later after eating much crow, called her "A Liar. " Another former rape victim Ruth Sheehan in the News and Observer wrote a sincere apology for her screed early on. We need not quote her, she speaks well enough herself. It is amazing that the most hard line victim of rape, would give one of the greatest compliments to the victims of false accusation. Not that it would matter much to Sanger nor Wantland who are not "legal experts" nor does is seem about the statements of journalists who were once raped themselves.

When a a case is dropped, this doesn't mean it was "false" (a lie), so much as "unsubstantiated" (not enough evidence). Simply because something cannot be legally proved, does not mean it didn't happen.

Laughable. For people who claim not to be "legal experts" they sure were right! If the two had bothered to do any research at all on this topic, the significance of AG Roy Coopers proclamation would have made this statement unnecessary. Cooper did not declare the "charges dropped" because of lack of evidence of a rape. He declared them "Innocent" with a capital I due to the overwhelming evidence that there was no rape. You don't need to be legal experts (and we certainly are not) to notice the difference. Cooper all based this, anyone who later reads why he did not bring perjury and false incrimination charges against Mangum, not only on the DNA tests showing that everyone BUT the players had slept with Mangum, but also upon Mangum drug use, not to mention her previous felony conviction, and even a previous attempt by Mangum to use the rape card to frame someone.

[Researchers] in trauma say that "all the perpetrator asks is that we do nothing," while the victim asks that we believe and acknowledge the pain experience.

Considering the amount of Seroquel, it was unlike she could experience any pain of any kind other than weight gain, headaches, and dry throat (not that this means much to Sanger nor Wantland, who along with not being legal experts probably are not pharmacology experts either). And of course they gloss over the role of SANE nurse Tara Levicy who (if Mangum did not commit perjury) definitely did.

Actually we take that back-a mistake on our part.

Levicy was not a nurse. She was a nurse in training.

Yet, someone who claimed, as Sanger and Wantland believe, "believed that no woman who said she was raped ever lied," could hardly be (if one reads the link above) a credible source for medical reports. The doctor (Manley) who actually took the medical records of Mangum noted "no sign of rape" and that her [Ms. Mangum's head], back, neck, chest, breast, nose, throat, mouth, abdomen, and upper and lower extremities were all "normal." Only noted diffuse edema of the vaginal walls, something caused by several sources including, recent sexual intercourse, drinking, drug use. Mangum, prior to the party, had done all of these. Not that this matters much to Sanger nor Wantland, besides not being "legal experts" seem not to be experts in reproductive physiology. Remember: they wish to focus on the sexual assault.

After getting caught in passing off notably false (ie, according to Sanger and Wantlands definition: lies) medical reporting. The real clincher came out. Was Levicy even medically qualified? Hardly, turns out as KC Johnson writes, "Her undergraduate degree, from the University of Maine, came in women’s studies—the discipline that produced copious Group of 88 members, and home of feminist law theory, which contends that women never lie about rape." So reprehensible was inSANE Levicy, that she has a whole lawsuit to herself!

The reality is-we weren't in the room. We do not know what happened.

Actually you two, we do. And if you were reading thus far you would know that given Kim Roberts testimony (especially), very little if anything of Crystal's story is valid. What's more, we know that the one Mangum named specifically during the lineup (Reade Seligmann) had an impeachable alibi. Not that this means much to Sanger nor Wantland, who are not "legal experts." We may not know all that happened in the house, but we do know quite well what did not happen:

Sexual Assault (Rape).

In workshops Ross has facilitated, groups will estimate 20-30 percent (*source?*) of all allegations sexual assault (rape) are false. Recent research suggests that the actual reports are likely quite low, between 2-8%.

What research? "Likely quite low?" Not only limited to this section but throughout the article the writers rely on pithy qualifiers such as "often" "suggests" "likely" and so on. What is this research that Ross reports that the rate is two to eight-percent? We are not told. Who did it? Perhaps it is Sanger or Wantland's own?

Unlikey, given the amount of research given to this simple topic they have demonstrated. In addition, one would think that as brazenly arrogant of people to dismiss the facts of the Duke case as they are, the writers would have no problem citing their own work. The only search found of that type of number comes from Susan Brownmiller and a Ms. column citing reseach by Mary Koss. "Recent research" you say? If you consider the 1990s (Koss) or 1975(!) (Brownmiller) "recent." Heather MacDonald (who remarks on these studies), however, does cite some recent research including disappointing rape reports (for the feminist rape industry member that is) that are required by federal law to be reported by universities. Not that it means anything to Sanger nor Wantland, who are not "legal experts."

So why does this event scare them so that they feed us with false (lies) answers? The Duke scandal represents a threat the the rape industry. Ideological, pseudo-academic yokels (like Duke's own faculty cheerleaders like Davidson, Lubiano, Halloway, and Deutsch) with thinner publications and vitas than anorexic teenagers are entrenched around the country, in classrooms, seminars, workshops (like Ross). They are literally making a living, like snake-oil salesmen, by peddling their cure all potions-namely that we should all feel guilty instead of false (lying) accusers. Like the Tara Levicy's, their dubious authority is more to them than the facts. If anything Doin it Well should be thanking "our boys" from saving Mangum (notice how throughout this entire article of theirs we must satisfy ourselves with some sort of "She who must not be named" folly?) from, in addition to lying, drug abuse, prostitution, theft, also perjury. Instead of calling out Mangum, they cover her, and now make it more difficult for real rape victims to speak out. And when they do, what happens?

Let's go back to Duke to find out:

A real rape occurs at a black fraternity at Duke. How does Duke respond? Brodhead refused to meet with the victim even once. Meanwhile Duke Provost Larry Moneta, who illegally gave police code authorization to the police to search all the lacrosse players dorms, the anti-Semitic Sheldon Hackney lackey, who tried to railroad a student (with the help of Houston Baker) at U Penn for daring to call riotous rousers "water buffaloes" blames the victim saying ""part of the reality of collegiate life and of experimentation and some of the consequences of students not always being in the right place at the right time." Where was the media on this one? Where were Sanger and Wantland?

Having published all this hitherto, we must nonetheless acknowledge the fact that the writers did indeed take the time to even address the subject-one that most universities and academics are avoiding like the plague that PC has in turn first infected the nation. Nevertheless, given the nature of journalistic duplicity and malpractice that has been a hallmark of the Dailly Illini (who's parent company also runs the Buzz which the column appears in), we must take their undertaking with a grain of salt the size of the Dead Sea. After all, given the sublime editing of Illiomedia, how do we know if that was even the question put forth by "Mr. T." If he is out there, perhaps he can tell us. We would love to know.

Therefore in response to a column that has withhold almost as much exculpatory evidence as Nifong himself did, with so many false (lies) statement's, we name "Doin it Well" as TASSers of the highest order.

Posted by Hound No. 2