Saturday, September 22, 2007

Lubiano's Cover E-Mail

A question from today's comment thread:
KC...Just wondering. Have you ever seen the cover email (I assume there was one) that Wahneema Lubiano sent to the faculty with the solicitation to sign the "We're Listening" ad. If this email exists do you think it will ever see the light of day? I can't ask Professor Lubiano myself since I've been summarily sentenced to her email filter.

A: Yes. Here it is.
African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident. We’re trying for Thursday (04/05) if we can do it; if not, then next Monday (04/10). I’ve attached a draft of the ad to this email. The attachment is just a draft of the text; we’re still working on design elements. The ad is built around student articulations.

AAAS is sending the ad draft to Cultural Anthropology, Literature, and History, but we don't have an email list of all department and programs chairs, and I don't have time to put one together, so if you are willing to spam this to other individual faculty or to your chairs to see if they're interested in supporting the ad and so that as many faculty as possible have a chance to see it and sign on, we would appreciate it.

If you would like to be a signatory to the ad, please send your names to me at [Lubiano's e-mail]. PLEASE DO NOT HIT REPLY–DO NOT RESPOND TO THE ENTIRE LIST IF YOU ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT YOUR NAME BE ADDED.

We will not be listing the names on the ad itself (only the supporting departments and program units) because we’re trying to make the material quoted from the students the major focus of the ad (as you will see in the draft). We’ll list the individual names on the AAAS website and indicate on the ad itself that people may go to the website to read individual faculty names.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Wahneema

[Update, 10.34pm: Both emphases added. The first emphasis notes that the ad came from official Duke funds--in violation of Duke policy. The second emphasis calls into grave doubts the repeated suggestions of President Richard Brodhead that the ad was about generalized social or racial issues in society, and not about, to quote the statement's author herself, the "lacrosse team incident."]

106 comments:

Debrah said...

Voila!

j.nc said...

"spam this to other..."
That's a new use of the term "spam". Could she mean "forward" as people in the 21st century have taken to calling that action?

"PLEASE DO NOT HIT REPLY"
How does she expect anyone to respond then? Carrier pigeon? Perhaps she meant not to hit "REPLY ALL".

Amazing the spelling is correct - not something these 88s are good with it seems - somehow they usually manage to defeat built in spell-checkers.


KC:

- What was the subject line for the email? That would be worth preserving as well.

- What time of day was it sent? During or after work hours.

- What did the attached draft look like? Did the student "quotes" morph from then compared to the final ad?

Jader said...

So much for the hogwash that the ad had nothing to do with the "lacrosse team incident".

Anonymous said...

A few thoughts...

"Built around student feedback" equals "My own nutjob agenda I am trying to brainwash into the few students I can con into taking my worthless class"

Materials quoted from the students??? Where was this?

I think it is hilarious that she uses the term "spam". I could not myself think of a more appropriate term for her bilge overflow.

ES Duke 1990

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I've got this straight. She didn't have time to dredge up a few easily-available email addresses. However, her intent was to list "supporting departments and program units." If she didn't have time to dig up email addresses, how did she expect the "departments and program units" to have time to go through whatever process they would need to determine whether to support the ad?

Oh, sorry, at Duke you just find some faculty member to claim the department supports it, and then you can do whatever you want. Definitely much faster that way.

teddy bear said...

"..if you are willing to spam this.." great choice of terms, Wahneema... for this is 100% pure Spam.

Anonymous said...

What I've never understood is why they were in such a hurry to publish the ad. That pretty much removed any chance for a reasonable person to say "Wait a minute..."

I also wonder how many of the faculty asked to have their names added without actually reading the entire ad.

mac said...

Pretty clear from the email that no one (of the 88) was talking about race and sex "in-general," whether they meant at Duke, in the City of Duhh, or on college campuses all across the country: it was all about "the lacrosse team incident," and ONLY about the "lacrosse team incident."

I don't think there was any other "lacrosse team incident."

I had a friend who built spec-houses. He would hire a contractor to do the work. On his specs for the job, there would often be very expensive accoutrements - (marble fireplaces, expensive fixtures etc.) He would always ask the contractor if he wanted to go over the contract, and the usual reply was:

"I can read."

Later, when the contractor would come back and complain that the specs were unreasonable, too expensive, the man would reply:

"You told me you could read."

Such as the email Ms. Lubiano sent out. She was assuming that the recipients could read, too.

Thanks for publishing this, KC.

Anonymous said...

so the ad wasn't about the lacrosse incident, even though she said the ad was about the lacrosse incident. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong - KC, but I thought part of their defense was, the ad was not to the Lacrosse Team. This cover letter shoots that down.

Anonymous said...

Clearly supports your repeated comment that Wahneema considered the expedited publication date crucial -- so as to outrun Nifong's (criminally) belated revelation of the DNA results.

JeffM said...

KC

You should perhaps change your name to Mycroft.

Do you perchance have as well the original version of the ad before the Chronicle toned it down?

Anonymous said...

KC -

Do you have a copy of the draft of the ad for comparison to the final version?

Would be interesting and possibly revealing to know (1) what precisely the G88 originally signed up for; (2) what changes were made by Lubiano to make it print-worthy. (As I recall, some changes to the ad were requested by the Chronicle.)

- jamegumb

TaterCon said...

KC, is there another email wherein the faculty were informed that actually using names in the ad was under consideration? Was there discussion about using department names without putting the use of the departments' names to a vote of the various faculty members?

Was there any questioning about who would be funding the ad before
it was placed? Or, did those questions arise only after the fact?

Anonymous said...

Where does this email leave Brodhead and Lubiano with a potentially devastating new round of law suits from the other players expected pretty soon?

It would seem that Mr Brodhead would command more respect if he resigned and drifted into the mists of time. Sadly it would seem; only gentlemen/women walk this honorable path?

I should imagine that Duke lumini must be bouncing off the walls at the take over of Duke by such radicals and a pompous Brodhead.

Richard of Loxley

Anonymous said...

Thanks for asking, I did have a question Wahneema. How does it feel to have your racist agenda exposed ?

Anonymous said...

12:56////During of after work hours?!!! Most faculty work 24-7 rather than punching in a 9-5 clock.

FWIW: This note does not seem so hobbile to me as it does to some of you. And, it is a pain to pull up addresses on some university e-mail systems.

Anonymous said...

To the 1.55: "Hobbile?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that one of the new terms invented by Grant Farrad or Houston Baker? Do you clowns think you can simply invent words and have people understand what you're saying? Or is this a method of being able to say anything and then later claim the reader didn't understand the
"real" meaning? Hobbile. Jeez!

Anonymous said...

This is very important, new information.

I like the very explicit and deliberate appeal to unaccountability and irresponsibility, when Wahhhhneeeeeeema implies to her potential signors that all signatures will be treated as virtually anonymous:

"We will not be listing the names on the ad itself (only the supporting departments and program units)..."

Sorry, 88ers....we know who you are, and we know how you (do not) think. You don't get off as easy as Wahhhhneeeemaaaaaa promised you.

Anonymous said...

2:09

What a jerk you are! I'd assume it was a typing error and get on with my life. The up side of your reaction is, however, the possibility that you'll have a stroke due to high blook pressure.

If typing errors equal "clowns," judging from this list, they aren't only on the left. Maybe they're new terms invented by the Bushies and other right-wing morons....

Stu Daddy said...

To the 1:55...

24/7 ??? Give me a break. Many professors are able to build their work week around two or three mornings teaching one or two classes, if that. Plus a couple of open office hours for for the occasional ambitious student.

And what does "hobbile" mean? Did you mistype "horrible"?

Anonymous said...

1:54,

What racist agenda? I think white racists are trying really hard to find one. Ain't there. Tough toolies as they say...

Anonymous said...

hobbile - probably a really weird misspelling of "horrible". Who knows, it may be a phonetic adaptation of the word for some people, such as some "revered" english professors.

Just my guess.

jamil hussein said...

I'm shocked to found out that AP has done investigative journalism re Jena. What next, New York Times having a report that is not one-sided propaganda??

Jena facts, by AP

Anyway, sounds a very good report and exposes the earlier MSM propaganda.

JeffM said...

@ 2:09

"Hobbile" is a well-known word, and its meaning is clear from its roots of "hostile" and "hobbit." It means "unjustifiably hostile toward hobbits." You are merely exposing your pathetic ignorance.

j.nc said...

horrible..

I think that is what 1:55 meant.

I also work 24/7 - often. But that is divided into company time and my time. If I sent something like that on company time (or personal time) with a company email system (makes motion of knife slitting throat).

So since they work 24/7 then 1:55 is saying the email was sent on "company" time. From the U's email system.

Is that a good thing? I think not.

Anonymous said...

Stewieeeee,

When people make moronic comments like yours about the hours faculty keep (you've left off committee meetings, research, and class preparation to name a few), I usually invite them to follow me around for a couple of days. It takes pounds off for them to keep up with my schedule.

Yep, 24/7. Even the unambitious e-mail. And plenty of them show up for office hours.

Anonymous said...

Why an English professor, 2:40? You'd be wrong (and stupid). My typing error. B in place of R. Dislexic fingers. Sorry, Charlie! ;-)

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 1:55 said...

...12:56////During of after work hours?!!! Most faculty work 24-7 rather than punching in a 9-5 clock.
...FWIW: This note does not seem so hobbile to me as it does to some of you. And, it is a pain to pull up addresses on some university e-mail systems.
::
I think you missed a little bitty point.

Any university response to a crisis should be from 'one voice' and that voice is the person hired by the BOT as their president.

The president or his/her designate approves any response to a crisis.

The horrible (hobbile) issue here is that the G88 view their university not as an educational institution but rather as the funding mechanism for their agendas.

The 'one voice' response issue is absolutely critical for campus safety and security and there is NOTHING more important than campus safety and security.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Isn't anyone curious about how KCJ got the e-mail and if he asked permission to publish it?

To the snarker about company time: if you're working at home, I 'spose you can use whatever e-mail you want, nicht wahr? I don't use my university e-mail for anything that isn't work related, because I'm employed by a public university. So what?

Anonymous said...

GP

Why should a university speak in one voice during a crisis? During any crisis? I didn't realize employment at a university meant giving up one's own opinions and ability to act. Silly me. I didn't think we were in the Soviet Onion. (Back off, snarkers. The Onion is deliberate.)

Anonymous said...

About GP's one voice: I don't think there was probably any threat that the student body was in clear and present danger over the LAX case. One voice? Indeed.

locomotive Breath said...

Next we'll find out that she really did mean "to drive thought the heart of the lacrosse team" which she now denies.

Seriously, KC, do you have any information about why the ESPN writer characterized her remarks that way in a manner that she later said was completely wrong?

Anonymous said...

"Most faculty work 24-7 rather than punching in a 9-5 clock."

Don't get too comfortable with that distinction.

inman said...

How can any of the '88 deny that the ad was directly related to and motivated by the allegations of rape?

This e-mail states in relevant part:

African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident."

How can any of the '88 deny the clear and direct nexus between this ad and the HOAX?

This is Exhibit A in what deserves to be an indictment of the behavior and attitudes of the '88. It also is Exhibit A in showing their intellectual dishonesty. It needs to be juxtaposed with the '88's statements that denied its nexus with the alleged rape.

A question for the academy: Shouldn't unequivocal intellectual dishonesty be cause for termination of a tenure status?

Joe T. said...

In case I don't get a chance to say it later: Thanks for everything, and all the best in Israel, KC Johnson. But I hope we'll have you back in New York someday.

Stu Daddy said...

To the 2:57...

Everyone knows that little if any work is accomplished in meetings. And what good is research in the humanities if it doesn't lead to useful articles, monographs, or book length publications?

I know professors work hard and study many years to attain their lofty perches in the Ivory Tower, but try explaining your claim of 24/7 to the ordinary working stiff.

As my father used to say, you folks get paid to do what most folks pay to do! :>)

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.17:

I fear there is no expectation of privacy to an e-mail that was sent out as a mass mailing with an explicit request to "spam" it.

I obtained the e-mail from one of the many people that Lubiano spammed.

To LB:

Lubiano has been very very careful in her remarks about ESPN. She has stated that she never said anything about driving a stake through the heart of the lacrosse team. But, of course, ESPN never claimed that she said that.

Anonymous said...

KC, Were you polite enough to request permission to print it or do you just take people's words and put them in cyberspace w/o permission?

Anonymous said...

Dear 3:33, I'm not sure what was meant by your comment, but I'm way comfortable with that distinction and will continue to be. I don't think anyone--outside the rabid right--wants to put faculty on time clocks. You get too much work out of 'em this way.

inman said...

Inasmuch as Lubiano interjected herself and her department into the center of the storm, ... surely she and the AA department have liability under the civil rights laws of this country. It seems top me that this clearly represented a conspiracy to abet the denial of due process and of the lacrosse team's civil rights.

I'd bet the initial draft of the ad would support that judgment. Accordingly, it would be relevant to an examination of the civil rights issues and should be subject to subpeona by either the lacrosse players or the justice department.
______________________________

KC @ 3:59 ...are you saying that, in effect, Lubiano answered a question that had not been asked? That would be very telling.

_______________________________

Also, KC, this blog has been quite a learning experience for me. I feel like I have audited a class led by a remarkable teacher.

Thank you and good luck!

Tom Inman

Anonymous said...

Through the collective hearts? Or the heart of darkness? The vampire's heart?

Anonymous said...

To the 3:33: If I had to punch a 9-to-5 time clock, the public would be the loser, because I'd happily close up shop and get far, far less work done. The would be especially detrimental to my students, but if it were so decided, I wouldn't protest!

Anonymous said...

I know hindsight is 20-/20, but I've earnestly reviewed the Listening Statement and tried to place myself in the time and place when it was forwarded and still come to the same conclusion - notwithstanding the context, it was never worthy of my signature and endorsement. I have a vivid and specific memory of driving to work and listening to news reports of the case and thinking - "hold on; something doesn't sound right; any group of 40+ college kids are not so morally bankrupt as to not report a violent crime; plus this DA sounds like he's trying too hard to "sell" the case to the media (to the media! not even a grand jury yet); if there really is evidence of a crime, he wouldn't have to make so much noise about it." Not a very sophisticated analysis, but that was my initial thought at the time the news surfaced of the crime and Nifong began his media tour.

Once I learned of the Listening Statement, I thought of it as a sad commentary on Duke that a group of highly educated individuals supposedly tuned to the importance of civil rights could make such an error in judgment. The passage of time has not changed my opinion as to Duke and its faculty.

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.00:

I have previously received the following instruction from Wahneema Lubiano:

“Do not email me again. I am putting your name and email address in my filter.”

I have done as Prof. Lubiano requested me to do. And, as I noted before, there is no expectation of privacy with a spam e-mail.

Steven Horwitz said...

Just two quick notes:

1. Most faculty at my place hardly work either "12 hours a week" or 9-5. Our own in-house surveys suggest most faculty work well over 50 hours per week and some as many at 60 or 70. If you think the job is just "teach a few hours of class per week," you're wrong.

2. As for using the university email system... the reality of faculty life, especially at private schools, is that the line between home and office is a very thin one. Faculty (and even non-faculty staff at universities) don't think about being "on company time" in the same way as the for-profit sector does. It's just not the culture. And if using the university's email system for "personal" email was crossing the line, someone better fire me a thousand times over.

The questions of when the email was written and using what server etc are just silly.

Stick to the real issues:

1. It was CLEARLY about the LAX case.

2. How did the departmental "approvals" happen?

KC Johnson said...

I echo Steve's points.

Snarker (was j.nc) said...

3:17 said: "To the snarker about company time: if you're working at home, I 'spose you can use whatever e-mail you want, nicht wahr? I don't use my university e-mail for anything that isn't work related, because I'm employed by a public university. So what?"

Guessing you mean me.
Hmmm. At 12:56 & 2:51 I was referring to the person who crafted the email which is the subject of this post. What am I missing about your response? Maybe you thought I was referring to you. Sorry.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Stick to the real issues"

3. What did the first submission that was rejected for publication say?

Anonymous said...

4:01 & 4:05

It's always fun sticking a pin in you gasbags. btw, is this part of your oh-so-important workday? Verrrry impressive.

JeffM said...

Did any departments approve the ad? I thought that was still unknown.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson wrote "And, as I noted before, there is no expectation of privacy with a spam e-mail."

Any attorneys out there familiar with this issue? Is there really a difference between "spam" and "non-spam" email? I would think that if Prof. Lubiano had forwarded her email to only one recipient, that one recipient could forward that email to as many persons as he or she pleased. It is my understanding that an email is the "property" of not only the sender but also the recipient. In other words, Prof. Lubiano in sending the email could not expect it to be kept private and could not prevent its further dissemination and/or publication. (Note: I think the term "expectation of privacy" is better left to a discussion of circumstances involving an agent of the State.)

j.nc said...

Faculty (and even non-faculty staff at universities) don't think about being "on company time"...
"The questions of when the email was written and using what server etc are just silly."

Agree it is not one of the main issues. Just seemed an interesting point at the moment from a “corporate” perspective.

That is an interesting culture. Since there's no real concept of “on company time,” using the University's time and resources (infrastructure) to pull together something like the G88 ad is viewed as business as usual in that world.

I really had no idea it was like that on campus.

Anonymous said...

KC,

Thanks for your response. I only wish that the rest of my questions about the Duke fiasco could be answered so readily.

Professor Lubiano can obfuscate with the best of them but apparently she can also be clear and concise. Her statement that the AAAS "is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident" is unequivocal about her intent in publishing the "We're Listening" ad, not that anyone ever believed it was about anything else.

As the parent of a Duke graduate, I was, and continue to be, profoundly disappointed with the response of both the administration and the Group of 88 to the Duke fiasco. I actually expected them to stand up for the rights of their students and was shocked, absolutely shocked, to discover that many at Duke have become nothing more mirror images of that which they profess to despise.

Anonymous said...

"student articulations"? huh?
"design elements"?
"indicate on the ad"?
"Wahneema"?

the hallmark of every intellectual poseur is the misuse or novel invention of words having greco-latin origin. "student articulations" strikes one as a reference to those unfortunates at Duke who are suffering from a premature and debilitating arthritis, not "students' comments"
as it should have read.

People of this ilk shouldn't be let near a university campus in the same way known sex offenders are kept a certain radius from local elementary schools.

There is a thermometer for all this silliness, it's called the US dollar: every day it's worth less than the day before..........

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 3:19 said...

...GP
...Why should a university speak in one voice during a crisis? During any crisis? I didn't realize employment at a university meant giving up one's own opinions and ability to act. Silly me. I didn't think we were in the Soviet Onion. (Back off, snarkers. The Onion is deliberate.)
::
Actually the Soviet Onion (Union) is crisis management ...all the time.

And yes, I do mean that, in my opinion, you give up your own opinion and ability to act in front of the public during a crisis.

You can give your opinion and act with respect to the administration (or crisis team) but not in front of the public.

You have no idea how big of a problem that was here in Houston when we were setting up the Astrodome and Convention Center for Katrina survivors.

Every screwball professor, massage therapist and Al Haig want-to-be was running around trying to sabotage the 'one voice' system we had in place...and shouting LOOK AT ME!

Concerning the 3:20 PM comment. That could be true and in that case the crisis team would have agreed, no doubt.

I have been part of the crisis team three times in my life and each time the Fire Chief and insurance carried had a representative on site with a DEMAND for a one-voice system...RIGHT NOW!

I never figured out how the insurance people got there so quickly.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

re the usage of "student articulations"

I know this is scary, but Miss Wahneema thinks she's being:

a.) clever, and

b.) scholarly

The depth of her stupidity?

See Jules Verne.

Anonymous said...

5:25

A silliness thermometer?

That's simply brilliant--right out of Monty Python.

inman said...

Given my understanding of the word "spam," Lubiano's e-mail could not, in any way, be entitled to privacy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the term "spam" implies a bulk-sending of e-mail on an unsolicited basis.

"Spam has several definitions, the most often cited definition being unsolicited commercial email (UCE). However spam [h]as several definitions, varying by the source. Once such definition is any email message that is pornographic or lewd, others include fraudulent emails. Another definition being any email message where the sender’s identity is spoofed, such as messages sent though unprotected SMTP servers, ect. The definition of UCE is the one most people think of when they think of spam and many hard line anti-spam activists use this generic definition." (source: Wikipedia)

Alternatively, perhaps "spam" is:

"... defined in the relationship between the sender and the recipient. If the sender has no consideration or care for the recipient, then it is spam." (see here)

Perhaps the first definition applied with Lubiano's recognition that her e-mail was "...pornographic or lewd...[or} fraudulent ..." when she used the term 'spam'. Or perhaps the second definition applies in that she really didn't care about the consequences that the proposed ad could have on potential signatories.

In either case, but especially in thes second, her e-mail would not be entitled to privacy. Further, to the extent that it could be considered as inciting others to abet the denial of civil rights, it would surely find the light of day in a criminal proceeding.

On another note, I find the first definition enlightening in that it focuses on unsolicited commercial e-mail; for Lubiano's ad was clearly 'selling' her agenda and politics.

Anonymous said...

I notice the defenders of Wahneema
fall back on name calling immediately. What is wrong with these people? If you can not behave in an adult fashion while you argue your views than perhaps you should not be allowed to talk to the grownups.

Gary Packwood said...

inman 3:38 said...

...A question for the academy: Shouldn't unequivocal intellectual dishonesty be cause for termination of a tenure status?
::
Absolutely! Well said.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

to 5:12 p.m.: if the e-mail had been sent to one person with specific instructions that it be kept confidential, then there would be no expectation of privacy. The recipient would probably be liable for passing it along, IF the sender could prove damages. If the e-mail does not contain any confidentiality instructions, then you're in a gray area that can be argued both ways. (decision would depend on the specific facts) In both cases, anyone OTHER than the original recipient would be free to do whatever they wanted with the info, once they got it. See the Pentagon Papers/Daniel Ellsburg case; a newspaper could legally publish admittedly stolen documents since the paper was not responsible for the actual theft, even though they benefited from it.

Of course, when the e-mail, or letter, or whatever contains specific instructions to send it to anyone the recipient wants, such as "spam it", then anybody can do anything they want with it, and the writer has no recourse because of his or her own written intentions.

Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Anonymous said...

To Gary,

You'd have a hard sell trying to convince faculty that there should be but one voice from a university.

Faculty do not consider themselves employees of universities, even though they are these days.

In the olden days, before so much money was at stake and before the administration outnumbered the faculty, most university presidents had limited power.

Dwight Eisenhower was given the message directly when he became president of Columbia University. He said he wanted to address the employees of the university. The famous physicist Isaac Rabi responded, "President Eisenhower, we are the university."

Anonymous said...

3:38 and 5:44, not 524....

sorry for the typo

Anonymous said...

I am the 6:49
Apparently my earlier comment that was modified by the 649 vanished. My point was to 3:38 and (5:44) that they must have meant "equivocal" not "unequivocal" as they used it.

Definition of equivocal:
1 a : subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse--an equivocal statement

KC Johnson said...

To John in Dc:

I disagree. I have chosen the wording (which I have used often) for this precise reason.

Saying, as the post did, that the ad thanked protesters who had declared the lacrosse players guilty seems to me undeniable--unless one wants to claim that an ad that thanked protesters for making collective noise actually referred to protesters that no one save the Group of 88 noticed.

Saying that the ad thanked protesters for declaring the lacrosse players guilty gets to a question of intent--suggesting, for instance, that the Group members would not have thanked the protesters had the potbangers not declared the players guilty. I have my feelings on this issue, but I don't have proof one way or the other, which explains why I have avoided this word choice.

j.nc said...

Most companies have a corporate policy which states something like: Messages that are created, sent or received using the company's email system are the property of the company.

Prof Lubiano composed and sent it over the Duke system (assume it was on the Duke system). Which would make this Duke's email*.

Lawyers have used this connection before when going after a company.

*Of course - as I learned today - in the wild and whacky world of academia, rules/policies like this probably do not apply (or exist).

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson said...
To John in Dc:

I disagree. I have chosen the wording (which I have used often) for this precise reason.

Saying, as the post did, that the ad thanked protesters who had declared the lacrosse players guilty seems to me undeniable--unless one wants to claim that an ad that thanked protesters for making collective noise actually referred to protesters that no one save the Group of 88 noticed.

Saying that the ad thanked protesters for declaring the lacrosse players guilty gets to a question of intent--suggesting, for instance, that the Group members would not have thanked the protesters had the potbangers not declared the players guilty. I have my feelings on this issue, but I don't have proof one way or the other, which explains why I have avoided this word choice.

9/22/07 6:54 PM


KC, even you are confused at to which comment page is which. This one was intended for https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32542246&postID=4724319881008247688&isPopup=true

RRH

Anonymous said...

So...how has Nifong's debacle affected Nifong's retirement pay?

Debrah said...

This parsing of words is very annoying.

We all know what went down.

Why pacify dishonest people?

Anonymous said...

1. I'm fairly sure Ryan McFadyen received a phone call requesting permission to publish his email. Odd that he would make such a concession. Even more odd that there were so few protestations from the intellectuals of the "progressive left" about its disclosure. It appears that consistency of moral thought has been trumped by hypocrisy as a hallmark of some on the "left".

2. I'm also pretty sure that Karla FC Holloway received permission from all participants to pass along to the WD the 3rd or 4th hand "certain racial epithets" information she obtained while eavesdropping on a private phone conversation.

3. I know for sure at the Fortune 100 company where I've worked for over 30 years, that even a hint of personal use of company resources is grounds for immediate dismissal. I've seen it happen many times. Odd how the real world differs from the wonderlands of academia.

DM...

AF said...

Correct-o-mundo Soviet Onion is an apt name for the residence of the Klan of 88, the smelly administration, the even smellier DA's office, and the most pungent police department.
There really is something rotten in the state of Duhmark!

mac said...

GP 5:30
I'm with you, bro. I'm curious about how the massage folks broke the chain 'o command, though, at the Astrodome.

Maybe someone didn't call upon the right Universal Energy from the Goddess of Reiki Enlightenment and Self-Worship, AKA Nurse Levity?

AF said...

I must admit that WaaWaa is entitled to her mistakes. If she's smart, she'll hire Sandy Berger to retrieve her incriminating messages. He seems to be really adept at slipping things out of secure places and maintaining his security clearances with only a slap on the wrist. Sort of reminds you of the Klan doesn't it????? To date, the wrist slap has been minor. Alas, whack a mole may be coming soon to the village of Duhhh and the AAAS (amazingly assinine and stupid) department. If Dook had been a public institution, the ad would have been misappropriation of funds and WaaWaa might have served her time in a cell next to Mikey.
Ms. Lube-enema, draw in your claws and find something really academic to do.
Your e-mail says it all. No denying anything unless you can't read what you wrote. Fess up. And 24-7, is that for conjuring up ads or what? Oh no, I forgot. It was for writing your "forthcoming" book. Ghostwriting I guess since it seems to be invisible!

Anonymous said...

This post really makes me lust after some more Duke faculty/admin email. What these clowns were saying in public can't have been anything compared to what they were saying in private. Where are the Duke IT staff whistleblowers when you really need them? The disgruntled department secretaries? The grad student TAs? Come on, folks, next to this the Pentagon Papers would look like a comic book.

inman said...

6:53 Please do not alter my meaning.

I meant unequivocal. Having only one interpretation. Not subject to any second meaning. Black and white. No shades of gray.

My specific understanding is that the '88 (or at least some members of that group) have stated publicly that the Listening Statement was not motivated by the "lacrosse incident," the allegations of rape.

Lubiano's e-mail directly contradicts that assertion. Noone who received that e-mail could state anything other than the notion that the Listening Statement was related to the "lacrosse incident." Accordingly, anyone who received that e-mail and who stated that the ad was not motivated by the "incident" is dishonest.

There is no room in the modern academy for such dishonesty. Those who signed the clarifying statement, I believe, have collectively admitted to intellectual dishonesty. They should be given the modern day equivalent of a "drawing and quartering" with their parts being spread to all the corners of American academia to warn others of the need for honesty, rather than agenda-driven re-writing of fact.
___________________________

I was just reminded of Abraham Lincoln's letter to Mrs. Bixby (who had lost five sons in the War of the Rebellion) in which he stated:

"I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."

Every single one of the '88 should think twice, ... nay thrice ... about the altar of Freedom upon which they have placed their very words ... and the damage to the altar that their collective dishonesty has wrought.

Much blood has been spilled to protect and maintain the freedom of the '88 for them to not show a collective humility for transgression.

Amen.

Anonymous said...

KC-

Did you see Mark Anthony Neal quoted in the Baltimore Sun last week?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.ci.baggy19sep19,0,6782715.story

Mark Anthony Neal, a professor of African and African American studies at Duke University, said it's too easy for people - particularly those of an older generation - to be fearful of the fashions of the generation coming up behind them.

"Because we have a generation of adults now who are very fearful of hip-hop, it's very easy for them to criminalize the behavior than to actually engage young folk," Neal said. "No one wants anyone going to a job interview wearing baggy pants. But if they [young people] want to wear baggy pants with their friends or even to church, I don't have a problem with that.

"I think it's a problem where we have folks who are so willing, basically, to criminalize our youth without equipping them to make decisions on when it's good to wear baggy pants and when it's not good."

Glad to hear Mr Neal is NOW coming out against those who "are so willing, basically, to criminalize our youth."

Steven Horwitz said...

518 writes:

That is an interesting culture. Since there's no real concept of “on company time,” using the University's time and resources (infrastructure) to pull together something like the G88 ad is viewed as business as usual in that world.

I really had no idea it was like that on campus.


Yes, it would not only be business as usual but actually considered part of their work to respond to a perceived problem such as what they thought happened that night. And I don't necessarily think that's a problem.

Faculty perceive themselves as much more than "employees," which I generally think is a good thing. With tenure should come a sense of institutional concern that is much greater than in other jobs - the university has given you employment for life (more or less), so you should be an active, concerned member of the community. The problem with this case was that they allowed their prejudices to override the truth. Would you be concerned about faculty engaging in this sort of behavior if they had taken out an ad to *support* the LAX players (or even do what Econ did?). This sort of behavior would be odd in a corporate setting, but is perfectly normal (both descriptively and normatively) in higher ed.

JNC at 705:

I can't speak for others, but on my campus, it is quite clear that email sent using university servers is, ultimately, the university's property. We have internal policies, crafted with faculty input btw, that attempt to protect our privacy and delineate the circumstances and processes by which our private email can be read by staff. But no one is fooled: ultimately, all our bytes belong to them.

Anonymous said...

8:42 Is this a global Warming message?

Debrah said...

"I think it's a problem where we have folks who are so willing, basically, to criminalize our youth without equipping them to make decisions on when it's good to wear baggy pants and when it's not good."

************************************

Thug, my man......if this is the only problem you have to worry about and comment on, then you are more intellectually bankrupt than I had previously thought.

Stunningly, this is the kind of "nothingness" comprising much of the Gang of 88.

miramar said...

This may seem minor in comparison to some previous observations, but Lubiano is asking other professors to sign a statement even though she doesn't provide them with the definitive copy ("The attachment is just a draft of the text; we’re still working on design elements"). I have always thought that the gang of 88 was pretty dumb anyway, but even more so now that I know that they were approving a statement without knowing what it would actually say. Unbelievable.

KC, you obviously received the copy of the email from a Duke professor, perhaps one of the 88. Am I correct to assume that this person or these persons are actually sorry they signed, but still prefer to remain anonymous?

Matthew said...

To 6:18,

Normal operation and having an opinion are one thing. A PR crisis at a university is another.

When I was in an undergrad PR class, we did an exercise in class where we were given a PR crisis (which mirrored one that previously had happened to the college, a fire in a dorm room) and we wrote down the steps we thought on how to handle it. After 10 minutes, we discussed what should happen.

First things first, get all the media outlets to a room where they will be briefed throughout the crisis with an emphasis that the university will speak with one voice as to trying to avoid rumor and hearsay.

This ad shows how Lubiano clearly thought these players were guilty and thrusting her opinion in a case that did not have enough facts come to light to make an valid opinion. She has the right under free speach, but as a professor she:

- Basically denies the right of due process. As a professor, she should know better than to rush to judgement.

- It was irresponsible for her to list a department because her own opinion with a few agreeing with her in a specific DOES NOT GIVE HER THE RIGHT TO CLAIM THE DEPARTMENT AGREES WITH HER.

- Her quotes from "students" are irresponsible as a professor. In my undergraduate and now graduate school, we are preached about plagiarism. Lubiano put in quotes transcript hand-written notes. She implied they were quotes when in fact not. Also, I am assuming she did not clear with students the context and permission to use them. Finally, did she make sure the quotes were from Duke students as she represented them?

She was extremely unprofessional.

In a crisis, the university wants to speak as one voice. KC, I am interested to know if at your institution were you ever told/have it in the faculty handbook that you are a representative of the university and if a crisis ever occured to not talk to media? I know as a lifeguard at a YMCA and city pool we are told if an emergency occurs and the media shows up, we are not allowed to talk to them. I would think this is standard operating procedure.

Part of this whole lacrosse fiasco continued due to a SANE nurse-in-training giving opinions she most certainly could not give as well as unethical assertions.

Everyone has their opinion. But there is a reason there is a press secretary for the white house and if the spokesperson is blind-sided you here "That matter will be covered in the next briefing."

If you look at KC's post, he has rarely if ever spoke of his experiences of his employment at Brooklyn College. Why? I assuming because he is an employee and wants to keep his comments and feelings seperate from work. If a lawsuit would be filed, Brooklyn College could not be named as a defendent. Lubiano sent that over university email, sent it out to employees which she asked to agree with her and she had it paid for to put in the student newspaper. If as speculated she paid for the Ad with departmental funds, Duke probably could be named as a party if there was a lawsuit against Lubiano (which she was given shield by the Duke settlement, correct?). This could have been one of the many reasons Duke settled.

Anyways, I am off on tangents. I leave with one last question?

Is it not INCREDIBLY unprofessional for Lubiano to disguise shorthanded notes taken at a discussion as quotes? Isnt it unprofessional for her to use the quotes without the permission of the "students." Isnt it unprofessional for her to use the quotes without double-checking the context of said quotes?

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.07a:

I did receive the e-mail from one of its recipients, yes.

To the 10.07b:

Your general critique is one made by PoliSci prof Michael Munger in a perceptive post last December--namely, that the Group created the false impression that it was speaking on behalf of Duke. That was done particularly through the claim that academic departments had endorsed the ad.

On the issue of speaking with one voice: principles of academic freedom give wide latitude to what faculty can say. One limitation--the terms of the Faculty Handbook, as should have occurred in this point.

Your PR lesson, however, is well taken, and suggests another failure of the administration: Brodhead's silence in the face of the Group's ad--indeed, his usage of rhetoric interchangeable from the Group last April--showed a vacuum of leadership from the top.

rrhamilton said...

steven horwitz said...
The problem with this case was that they allowed their prejudices to override the truth.

No, steven, the problem with this case was that they allowed their prejudices to override their duty of loyalty to their university and its students. No matter how much they try to disguise their act of disloyalty by claiming that they acted out of some loyalty to some (unfuggingnamedofcourse) students who "felt threatened by white racism at Duke", everyone with an IQ above 40 knows what their true motivations were.

steven says .... Would you be concerned about faculty engaging in this sort of behavior if they had taken out an ad to *support* the LAX players (or even do what Econ did?).

Of course not. Why would anyone be concerned about faculty supporting their students when the students were proclaiming their innocence of charged made by people outside the university community?

Gary Packwood said...

Matthew 10:07 said...

....In a crisis, the university wants to speak as one voice.
...
...I know as a lifeguard at a YMCA and city pool we are told if an emergency occurs and the media shows up, we are not allowed to talk to them. I would think this is standard operating procedure.
::
Yes, your employer is actually doing you a great favor as a lifeguard. If someone within the organization is hatching a story or scheme you are not going to find yourself as part of the story or scheme.

More importantly, it is amazing how many students, faculty and staff decide NOT to hatch a story or scheme once they find out the handbook prescribes 'one voice' when the media shows up.

You suppose Duke press relations people were feeding rope to the faculty and staff on purpose?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Re: "No, steven, the problem with this case was that they allowed their prejudices to override their duty of loyalty to their university and its students."

No, the G88 allowed their prejudices to override their duty to support basic civil rights; they sacrificed the human rights of their individual students for what they believed to be the protection of the human rights of society as a whole. In the end, they protected no one and nothing. The econ. dept. simply stated their belief in the protection of the civil rights of their students; which would not have been necessary but for the Listening Statement.

rrhamilton said...

Re. Brodhead, of whom I have said very little in the past:

It's it interesting that if Brodhead had acted strongly last year that by now he would be mentioned for some high political office ... governor, senator, or at minimum a possible cabinet position in the next Democratic administration. Think of Terry Sanford (or Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton).

Instead, he will likely be fired (or will "resign") within two years, since this scandal will never die so long as he is at the helm of Duke.

I'm glad to see the judge in Jena deny bail to Mychal Bell, rather than take the Brodhead way of capitulation to the forces of political correctness. I say to steven horwitz that once again the leaders of the legal profession have shown far greater character than the leaders of academia.

Anonymous said...

There is a very simple way to ascertain whether or not Lubiano made up the "quotes" from the students or used "quotes" without permission. Simply ask The Chronicle what the policy is for ads that contain anonymous quoted material. No need to speculate; just call the ad department and ask. When I did, last I heard, The Chronicle requires that all anonymous quotes be documented. The person being quoted has to submit an acknowledgment to the newspaper. That way the newspaper is legally protected from students later saying something like "I was there and I didn't say anything like that and now people are saying that I did and they're pissed at me and so I'm going to sue your asses."

What Lubiano did was bad enough without a bunch of stupid speculation about made-up quotes or plagiarism from notes. Surely someone who tracked down as much information as KC did about an actual criminal case can nail down something this simple.

'Course it's more fun to keep talking about stuff being made up.

dumbenuf

Debrah said...

"Brodhead's silence in the face of the Group's ad--indeed, his usage of rhetoric interchangeable from the Group last April--showed a vacuum of leadership from the top."

Tonight--while in bed recuperating from a temporary Diva muscle injury--I came upon, by accident, the BookTV program with Stuart and Victoria Toensing, (wife of Joe DeGenova) on C-SPAN.

Unfortunately, I just caught the last part of it and Stuart was making similar points regarding Brodhead.

I encourage all of you to try and watch this program when it plays again tomorrow. Right now, I'm not sure when, but I'm going to find the schedule.

This is an excellent program and there were many provocative questions from the audience.

Stuart was quite good. He's more pointed with his words than KC.

(At least openly.) LOL!!!

locomotive Breath said...

To LB:

Lubiano has been very very careful in her remarks about ESPN. She has stated that she never said anything about driving a stake through the heart of the lacrosse team. But, of course, ESPN never claimed that she said that.


Precisely so. My question then is how is it that the ESPN sportswriter came to use that exact metaphor? Either he made it up himself out of thin air or she said something to trigger it. Do you have any insight - have you talked to that sportswriter at some point about the origin of that statement?

j.nc said...

Thanks for the patient replies Steven. Don't like what I'm hearing but, eh. So it goes.
;)

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we are being too hard on Wahneema. It appears that she used complete sentences and ran her work through a spell checker. Sure she has problems with clear thinking and logic but given the history of Baker and Farred this is an improvement.

Anonymous said...

For all the corporate e-mail fascists: I avoid using my university e-mail because I am employed by a state university. I don't want any trouble. Duke's policy may permit broader usage. I don't know. Do you?

But, if you are really sticky about university e-mail, then you have to recognize that faculty may not use their university e-mail accounts at night--WHEN MANY STUDENTS ARE ON LINE WITH IMPORTANT QUESTIONS--to the detriment of said students. Faculty might just get out of the habit of using e-mail when off campus. I don't think that's necessarily a pedagogical improvement for the students.

Some faculty--and this is fair enough--answer student e-mails only during office hours. Others--and I am one--answer e-mails whenever I see them. But, I don't think I would if I were bothered by the likes of the corporate know-it-alls who don't understand that we aren't you. (And thank goodness for that, I say!!! ;-p)

Debrah said...

This e-mail issue is like watching lint collect on furniture.

Who cares?

We all know that people sponge off their employers with frequency.

Anonymous said...

I am a simple RN - I do not know anyone who sponged off their employeer, least al all, the folk working in Emergency Departments.

scott said...

Brodhead is either a liar or an idiot to make the statement that "the ad was about generalized social or racial issues in society..." given the actual content (numerous direct references to the lacrosse incident and "the woman") and the timing.

How obtuse does someone have to be to try to argue that the placement of the ad that coincided with the biggest race/class/gender brouhaha in Duke's history was nothing more than a general statement? According to the Group of 88 and supporters, a racist and sexist environment had existed at Duke for years. Why wasn't such an ad placed in 2001 or 2005, or even March 12, 2006 if these people were so concerned about "generalized social or racial issues in society" or even more explicitly the general racist/sexist (as perceived by the G88) nature of Duke University?

Lubiano admitted in this email that it was all about the lacrosse case all the time. Brodhead has to have seen this email. If he hasn't then he is guilty of dereliction of duty by not becoming informed of a major piece of the entire incident. So which is it -- Brodhead the idiot or Brodhead the liar? Hmmmm, maybe it's both.

Anonymous said...

I actually attended the African American Studies Department town meeting at the Franklin Center which occurred right before the ad was published. That night Wanheema Lubiano presided over a panel of presenters and then moderated a passionate discussion with the audience. I was horrified at the tenor of the discussion, specifically, that I NEVER ONCE heard a single person use the word "alleged" or refer to "the incident" as anything other than a given. The meeting never pretended to discuss what might have happened, but rather, to discuss how to react to what had happened.
Most important though, while I recognize some but not all of the quotes that appeared in the ad, in more or less the words that were used, there was NEVER, NOT ONCE, any attempt to ascertain the identity of the speakers, to determine if they were indeed Duke undergraduates, and if they were, if their words were specifically describing their experiences on Duke's campus as opposed to in life in general. It was my impression that many did not look young enough to be undergraduate students anywhere. Others clearly identified themselves as affiliated with NC Central. Others I recognized and knew as professors, some grad students, some activists.

AMac said...

anon 10:34am --

Interesting observations. Unfortunately, they are impossible to evaluate absent a sense of your own credibility. Can you make (have you made) any statements about that Franklin Center meeting that are on the record?

Anonymous said...

Any progress towards the firing of Brodhead? Please report. If he had any class he would have resigned a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

3.46

It's not Brodhead. The question you should be posing is "Why can't a brilliant scholar like Larry Summers keep a job at Harvard"?

Show me a college president, and I'll show you a coward.

Anonymous said...

Dear 10:34am on 09/22/07,

The forum that Lubiano presided over is not the forum that the quotes are alleged to come from. Those quotes are alleged to come from a discussed presided over by Mark Neal. And about attempts to identify the students who said them, see my post upthread at 11:45am. There's a way to find out if the quotes were authenticated.

dumbenuf

Ralph Phelan said...

" Anonymous said...

To the 3:33: If I had to punch a 9-to-5 time clock, the public would be the loser, because I'd happily close up shop and get far, far less work done. The would be especially detrimental to my students, but if it were so decided, I wouldn't protest!

9/22/07 4:05 PM"

If you're anything like Wahneemaa or any of the other signers of that ad, less output from you would be a net social benefit.

Ralph Phelan said...

Steve Horwitz:
" But no one is fooled: ultimately, all our bytes belong to them."

Shouldn't that be:
"all our bytes isbelong to them"?

One Spook said...

Anon@ 4:46 PM, dumbenuf to think commenters here are dumb, writes:

"And about attempts to identify the students who said them, see my post upthread at 11:45am. There's a way to find out if the quotes were authenticated.

dumbenuf"


Here's a concept... YOU use your way to find out if the quotes were authenticated!

Then report back to the rest of us.

Let me guess ... once upon a time you went on vacation to the Western part of the US and bought one of those maps at a gas station to help you find "hidden treasure" ...

One Spook

Anonymous said...

re: dumbenuf
The event at the Franklin Center just days before the ad appeared was advertised as an African American Studies Dept. town meeting. As such, Mark Anthony Neal, as the ranking professor, would have "presided". But he sat at the back of the room that night, though he did participate, and rather aggressively, in the discussion portion of the event. Wahneema, however, sat at the panelists' table with three other women, all of whom presented papers. Wahneema called the meeting to order, and formally moderated the discussion.

Anonymous said...

"All your base are belong to us!"