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

Keller's Resignation

Bill Keller has resigned as the head of the New York Times, leaving Jill Abramson at the helm of the "Paper of Record [number of Scandals, Inaccuracies, and Retractions]."

Not surprising, the Right over at Newsbusters and Timeswatch has taken this opportunity to attack the pair for every misstep including the John McCain- staffer hit piece, Jayson Blair, and the Times rush-to-judgement in the Duke Rape Hoax (Surprisingly, the harangue at Newsbusters did not include the Time's the shady dealing with Moveon.org).

We imagine some more pertinent reactions concerning Keller and Abramson's roles in perpetuating Nifong's reign of terror to appear this weekend or next week. Hopefully, DIW will have something to say.

Posted by Hound No. 2

(Updated 6-2-11)
Your color has been changed No. 2, since the change in background makes your font otherwise illegible.

Posted by Alpha Hound

V is for Victory, Vindication, and Valdosta

There was some uplifting news from Georgia today: T. Hayden Barnes has emerged victorious over Valdosta State concerning his unlawful expulsion by former-president, Ronald Zaccari.

As FIRE writes, the importance of the case demonstrates that "no president is above the law." To be sure, the major victory of this case, even beyond the return of Mr. Barnes lost rights of speech and due process, is the black eye against abuse of sovereign immunity by administrators and public officials in these cases. Judge Parnell ruled that Zaccari is "personally liable" for his actions. People like Mike Nifong, John Fallon, Rod BLAHgo, and Charles Steger can longer hide behind their roles as "good-intending" public stooges, but without the public accountability checks in place. The case can only further the backlash of government institutional abuse in a season and time where public loathing of government waste, corruption, and insularity is at an all-time peak.

Others have also weighed in with some observations which we believe are vital to the fight to combat the erosion of students rights across the nation.

The Student Press Law Center in particular states that the case highlights the promising trend of student handbooks and codes acting as legally-binding documents for schools that violate student rights; not only in public schools but private (emphasis added) as well:

"That finding adds to a growing body of law that makes clear
promises made by schools in handbooks, school charters, “Student Rights and
Responsibility” documents and other university statements can provide students
with legal protections that extend beyond those provided by more traditional
law. While most cases have so far involved promises made to students about the
fairness of campus disciplinary systems, the Student Press Law Center has long
argued that schools should also be held legally accountable for violating their
own student media policies and other provisions promising to protect student
speech."

An example of the crucial ramifications of this decision, we imagine this cannot make Brodhead and his ilk in the faculty and Duke echelons resting easy, since part of the Duke's rather pithy defense of its blatant violation of its own students rights rests on the out-right nullification of the Duke's faculty, student handbooks.

Posted by Hound No. 8
The Hounds of TASSers'ville

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