Posted on 01/04/2007 8:11:42 AM PST by maggief
Chapel Hill — WRAL has confirmed that the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case gave birth at UNC Hospitals on Wednesday.
Sources tell WRAL the woman had the baby by Cesarean section. She was not due until February.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
I agree and you're exactly right. She should have been an adjunct prof all this time.
May we speculate on why she's been given the more prestigious "visiting" designation, and at the associate level? I think it's obvious. I also think it's also obvious that her thin academic record makes it impossible for her to get a tenure track appointment.
In case I wasn't clear, anyone else with that lack of productivity would have been shown the door by now, visiting or not.
IMHO, it's a "legal hedge" appointment. A lip-service tribute to "diversity". Most colleges/U's are having to do this in order to stave off the "ball, set, match" games brought on by the "social justice" types.
Wasn't someone yesterday asking to find the "listening" statement? KC has it...
http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm
Was out with daughter the other day at a mall. Black dude sporting a 'tude t-shirt, walks up to us. He begins ranting about how he went up to a white couple exiting their car and just "tried to start a friendly" conversation with them. He told us the man (of the couple) said to him "we don't buy from n******", and the dude went on a classic race screech to daughter and I. About how racist whites were. And then tried to hit us up to buy some jewelry he had in his pocket.
I set his record straight about how whites are continually assaulted by black racialists in the West, and how jerks are jerks no matter what beautiful skin tone the Good Lord gave them.
He walked off right quick.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's "guilt trips" manufactured by those pretending to give two raps about "racism".
As KC Johnson points out:
The decision to draft the statement, penned by Wahneema Lubiano, came sometime shortly after March 29. The Group of 88's ad appeared on April 6. The indictment of the first two players targeted by Nifong, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, came on April 17. Dave Evans was indicted four weeks later.
So who, exactly, was using "pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women" to defend Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty between March 29, the earliest date when the idea for the ad could have originated, and April 6, when the statement appeared? Davidson doesn't say.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/apologia-for-disaster.html
The NCAA may want to look at the grade-fixing. They love witch-hunts.
From what I have read here the article seems like a whole lot of bullship! Making much too much of a story that had no social implications at all. The disaster was created by the powers that be at Duke, the media, and of course, first and foremost by the despicable Nifong!
Ms. Davidson missed her real calling as a revisionist historian. No worries, Ms. Davidson will have a full and fair opportunity to prove her critics wrong in a court of law.
Every one of those 88 should be lawyering up in anticipation of civil lawsuits. If they are this comfortable dissembling and insulting the intelligence of the public, the mind boggles at what they were doing when the cameras were off and the reporters gone.
I am trying to understand Ms. Davidson's point. Hired exotic dancers are victims, but hiring them is sleazy and a "sexualized form of race privilege."
Is Ms. Davidson aware that Precious typically danced at Platinum, a predominately black strip joint? How about the reports that the players specifically requested white or hispanic strippers? Why were Precious and Kim sent to the Duke Lax party, and what were their motives? Sleazy?
I wonder if the Wayback Machine has a copy? You don't have the original URL bookmarked, do you?
Never mind, LB has it.
BTW, I've got the original duke.edu-hosted pdfs of that, and the signatories.
Which is why the whole bloody humanities and social sciences should just be flushed down the toilet. It's not worth saving.
You know in Samurai days, when they dishonored themselves and their families, they knew what to do. They didn't make stupid excuses for their stupid behavior. They took matters into their own hands. This Cathy Davidson should do the right thing and free up her stupid faculty position for someone with an IQ with three digits.
No they pulled it from their server so the URL wouldn't help anyway. A few posts above mine somebody says they have a PDF.
Two questions come to mind.
First, why is the word "white" even in this sentence?
And second, is her objection to the ease of availability or to the actual stripping?(Hey, it's as worthy a topic to focus on as any other in this "educator's" rambling sophism.)
Good points, however, you are expecting far too much precision and logic from Ms Davidson. Identity politics is not about facts, it is about power and the objectification of all humans. To the likes of Ms. Davidson all the actors in this tragedy are symbols, symbols to be manipulated - hence the rush to collective judgments and wild generalizations. She demonstrates the same bigotary and prejudice she sees in others. She does not see Nifong's manipulation of voters as being a classic "social disaster" and reflective of the gullibility, prejudices and bigotary of a large segment of voters. The problem is not just Nifong, it is also the attitudes and thinking processes of large numbers of those who voted for him.
We can fall into this trap as well. Nifong is a DA. Nifong is corrupt. Therefore, DAs are corrupt. This statement holds if Nifong is treated as a symbol.
The reality is that the accuracy and the precision of her statements would be no greater if in fact the alleged event had occurred. It just would be harder for us to counter the resulting emotional outrage by pointing to the objective falsity of her generalizations.
Know it well. I be from the heartland of rotten "menu descriptions" -- San Francisco. And of course, once they get "minorities" rubber stamped with the "UofCA diversity seal of approval", then they add another "newer, extra special, deserving of preferences" minority to the ever burgeoning list of super select "minorities".
It's been one huge shell game from the get-go, with an eye to supporting the UN and the Marxist agenda, world wide, while pretending to "educate".
When "malaysians" were added to the Super Menu of Politically Approved Minorities in SF, it was not long after, Malaysians in San Francisco were properly "taught" not to capture and eat the loose dogs they found roaming the streets. Only then, did they get the UC Stamp of Official Preferential Approval. Soonafter, a woman in SF was permitted to marry her German Shepherd, I suppose, just to ensure the newer "approved minority" understood more than clearly the thing about San Francisco Women and Their Dogs.
And BTW, the committee could reject, out of hand, the white male applicants. As the committee chair, I had to write a separate justification for each woman or "underrepresented minority" that we rejected.
I'm laughing again, but not at you. I'm commisserating with the sweat on your brow at even having to deal with such a waste of money to stave off "minority" Legal Beagles.
In the case of Curtis, none of this applied. "Visiting" was clearly used to keep her there as a faculty member who would count as a full time female even though there was no way they could attempt to get her a tenured position
In CA, it is usually the "white" females who have to take the backseat on this, and they are supposed to appreciate this backseat as "entrenching" and supporting the "plight of minorities".
No wonder their writings are so debased. They've been debased, told to love it.
Can someone help me out here. Is the Dowd of the new lawsuit the same Dowd who received the horrific email response from Baker? TIA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.