- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Blog and Media Roundup - Sunday, April 3, 2011; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 3 2011, 05:19 AM (1,111 Views) | |
| abb | Apr 3 2011, 05:19 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/12607166/article-On-campus-sexual-violence-targeted?instance=main_article On-campus sexual violence targeted The Herald Sun 04.02.11 - 08:35 pm By Cliff Bellamy cbellamy@heraldsun.com; 419-6744 DURHAM -- A group of about 10 participants in a workshop Saturday at Holton Career and Resource Center responded to a set of questions using a remote clicker device. The first question was an ice-breaker, and asked the visitors which kind of super-hero power they would prefer. The second question, more in the spirit of the conference, asked participants if they had ever been in a risky situation and felt that someone should have intervened, but did not. Participants clicked in, and 91 percent registered a "yes" on the PowerPoint screen. The participants were getting a sample of the teaching and training methods of One Act, a program at UNC Chapel Hill that trains students in how to be more observant bystanders and more effectively prevent sexual violence on campus. The workshop was one of several presented Saturday as part of the daylong conference "Bridging the Gaps" which was subtitled "A Conference Addressing Sexual Violence on College and University Campuses." The conference grew out of the monthly meetings of Durham Mayor Bill Bell's Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Rape Task Force created in 2007. Representatives from Duke University, N.C. Central University and Durham Technical Community College addressed participants, who broke up into different workshops throughout the day. Many women go to college "believing they are entering a safe haven," only to become victims of some kind of sexual assault, said Yvonne Pena, director of the Durham Human Relations Department, in opening remarks. Disseminating information about prevention "to your sisters, your brothers, your neighbors is what is going to make Durham a safer place," Pena said. Steve Nowicki, dean and vice provost of undergraduate education at Duke, recalled a story about a female student he had taught and mentored. As she was preparing to graduate, she told him she had been raped two years earlier during her college career. "Isn't that incredibly sad," Nowicki said, "that this great student" had that trauma as part of her collegiate experience. He stressed that the number of men prone to commit sexual assault against women is a minority. To prevent such violence on campuses, it's important to empower people to step up. "This is about men and women working together," he said. One Act follows a similar philosophy. Bob Pleasants, the interpersonal violence prevention coordinator at UNC Chapel Hill, and Kelli Raker, rape prevention coordinator at UNC, discussed the goals and methods of the program. The program tries to avoid some traditional pitfalls of rape prevention strategies -- such as assuming that giving women some safety tips and tools will prevent all violence, and assuming that all men are prone to such violence. One Act tries to promote the idea that everyone can help, that "everyone is an ally," Pleasants said. One cornerstone of their approach is to change the attitudes and beliefs that lead to sexual violence. One crucial part of the program is that it is student-centered, and was designed specifically with UNC's needs in mind. An important part of student-centeredness is the sharing of personal (anonymous) stories from other students who have been confronted by violence. Students then get training in how to be a good observer, and learn some strategies for intervention. At the end of the training, which takes four hours, students sign a pledge to put their strategies in action in some concrete way. Since fall 2010, 300 students have been trained in the One Act program. A total of 27 student peer educators have been trained since the fall. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 3 2011, 05:31 AM Post #2 |
|
http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2011/04/jerry-sandusky-case-what-are.html Saturday, April 2, 2011 The Jerry Sandusky Case: What are the appropriate questions? With false accusations of sex-related crimes running rampant in our country, it often becomes difficult to ascertain what the truth might be when someone makes an accusation that might be credible -- or could be a lie. It becomes even more difficult when the person accused is well-known and admired. The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is reporting that a grand jury there is looking into allegations that Jerry Sandusky, the legendary assistant coach who worked with Joe Paterno at Penn State until retirement in 1999, sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy. Here is what was said on the Huffington Post today: Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State defensive coordinator known for his charitable work helping at-risk children, is being investigated by a state grand jury on allegations he indecently assaulted a teenage boy, a newspaper reported. Sandusky has not been charged. A grand jury examines accusations to determine if evidence warrants filing charges. A message left by The Associated Press at a number listed for Sandusky in State College was not immediately returned. His lawyer, Joseph Amendola, said in a statement that Sandusky maintained his innocence and was disappointed the newspaper published a story "prior to any determination by the Attorney General's Office that he did anything inappropriate at all." "While Jerry has been aware of an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General's Office for many months dating back to 2009, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence throughout this ordeal," Amendola said. The Patriot-News in Harrisburg reported Thursday that it spoke to five anonymous sources with knowledge of the case who say a grand jury has been meeting in Harrisburg for 18 months to hear allegations made by a 15-year-old boy in 2009. The paper reported the teen told authorities that there was inappropriate contact over a four-year period. The Patriot-News also reported this: Two months ago, state police at Rockview in Centre County began calling witnesses to a May 1998 report by Penn State University police detailing an earlier allegation of inappropriate contact against Sandusky by another boy. According to several sources, that boy, who was 12 at the time, alleged he and Sandusky were showering in the football building on Penn State’s campus when the incident took place. The boy’s mother told The Patriot-News she was specifically instructed by state police at Rockview not to speak with a reporter. Her name is being withheld by The Patriot-News to protect the identity of her son. No charges were ever filed against Sandusky. According to sources close to the investigation, the boy told police in 1998 that Sandusky had showered with him in a locker room of the Lasch Building — home to the football program — during a tour. The boy claimed Sandusky washed his body during the shower, sources said. As part of the May 1998 investigation, police had the boy’s mother call Sandusky to her State College home and confront him while they hid in another room, according to sources. Another boy, now an adult in the armed forces, was named as a witness in the 1998 Penn State police report and has been contacted by state police, his wife confirmed. All of this sounds quite damning, yet as one who is familiar with how the police work in such cases, this information might provide real evidence that Sandusky is a child molester -- or it could be absolutely meaningless. Unfortunately, as I read some of the comments made by readers of the articles, it seems that they have seen absolute proof of his guilt. Let me explain a parallel case, that being the charges against Michael Rasmussen. Like Sandusky, Michael has more than one person making accusations. However, as one looks closely at who is accusing Michael and the context of those accusations, one finds that there absolutely is no evidence except what three people are claiming. Furthermore, as one examines EACH of the accusations, it is not hard to see that they are questionable, and when the case comes to trial, we will find that the prosecution's "slam dunk" witnesses are going to be stumbling over a lot of facts that will be put in front of them. As I see it, the fact that there are multiple accusers in the end will make the case even weaker as the defense exposes the contacts between them. For example, Apryl has claimed that she had not had any contact with Scott Monroe, another accuser. However, it will not be difficult for the defense to establish that there was contact and planning between them. When that happens, the defense also will have demonstrated that Apryl committed a felony by making false statements and then lying on top of them. (Prosecutors already have told Apryl that this will be an easy case, and that she will only be on the stand for a short time. So, they have lied to her as well. This should be interesting.) Likewise, there were multiple accusers in the Tonya Craft case, and they crashed and burned, especially when it became obvious that they had been coached, and when Sandra Lamb's daughter actually recited lines from the movies in which she acted. So, I cannot say that two accusers against Sandusky actually means anything. I do find it interesting, however, that the police are doing what seems to be a careful investigation, unlike what we saw with Tonya Craft, the Jacobson child, Michael Rasmussen, and James Combs. In those cases, the police decided on the front end that the accused were guilty and that their job was to find a way to hammer square pegs of evidence into the round holes of truth. It is obvious to me that the police are being careful because if they are seen trying to railroad someone as prominent as Jerry Sandusky, then they are going to be scrutinized in every other sex-assault case they have investigated. Likewise, prosecutors will come under the kind of scrutiny that the press and others rarely give them if they are seen to try to fabricate evidence against one of the most respected sports figures in Pennsylvania. Now, I cannot say in this post that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of anything. In the accusation from more than a decade ago, police tried to trick him into making a self-incriminating statement, and their scheme fell apart. (That is why I say that just because someone accused him of sexual assault more than 10 years ago might very well mean absolutely nothing.) Nor can I say I believe the guy is innocent. I don't know, and right now I have no idea about what the investigation is doing, what people are saying, and if there is evidence beyond the "he said, he said" nature of this case. If a number of other young men come forward and make similar claims -- claims, I might add, that could be demonstrated to be credible -- then things might become much more difficult for Sandusky. Here is the problem in a nutshell: the law permits sexual-assault-molestation cases to go to trial simply on the word of an accuser. No physical evidence is necessary. (I don't know the details of Pennsylvania law, but when the federal government became involved in this area through the Mondale Act, one of the provisions was that states change their law to eliminate the need for physical evidence or anything else besides an accuser's words. I suspect that Pennsylvania has fallen into line.) I'm extremely wary of cases that are built upon someone's accusation, and especially someone who would stand to gain money (should a jury convict) through a lawsuit. I would be curious to know if any of the accusing parties have approached Sandusky or the organization he represents to demand money. Maybe that has not happened, but in other cases, we do find money to be a powerful motivator. I know nothing about Sandusky's attorney, Joseph Amendola. He might be an excellent attorney, someone who is well-versed in these kinds of cases, or he might be a friend who has handled other matters for Sandusky and has been called upon for this case as well. The important thing here is that if Amendola is NOT experienced in dealing with sexual assault accusation cases, or if he is not familiar with the reasons that such cases are very, very different from other kinds of criminal cases, then Sandusky could be in serious trouble, even if he is innocent. Jerry Sandusky's fame and reputation have served as a check upon the authorities in Pennsylvania to throw together a slipshod case in hopes of scoring a quick and easy victory. Nonetheless, here is a man whose reputation forever is stained, and if he is innocent and the accusations false, may those who accused him be forced to pay dearly. If the accusers are telling the truth, then I would hope the law would deal properly with him. We shall see. Posted by William L. Anderson at 8:22 AM |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 3 2011, 05:38 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/apr/03/wsopin02-why-we-wont-give-up-ar-912235/ Published: April 03, 2011 Home / news / opinion / editorial / Why we won't give up By JAMES E. COLEMAN As a private lawyer in Washington, I represented Ted Bundy pro bono in post-conviction proceedings challenging his convictions and death sentences in Florida. I did this from 1986 until his execution in January 1989. On the first day of the 1988 hearing in federal court to determine if Bundy had been competent to stand trial when he was convicted in 1980, a reporter asked the judge as he entered the courthouse whether the hearing was "just a waste of time." The judge, before hearing any evidence, replied, "Absolutely." At the end of the week-long proceeding, without hearing arguments or reading any briefs, the judge declared confidently from the bench that Bundy was "the most competent serial killer in America." Later, as we were packing our exhibits and papers, a high-school student who was in the courtroom asked me if I would want a serial killer living next door to me. I assumed that was her way of asking why I defended Ted Bundy. I told her that I had a daughter her age and that I would not want a serial killer living next door to me. But, I added, that's why it's important for the police and prosecutors to make sure they have the right person; convicting the wrong person leaves the serial killer on the streets. In the wrongful-conviction work that I now do at Duke University, I often think of the federal judge who was so certain that Bundy was not entitled to relief that he could decide the case before hearing the evidence. I thought of that judge when Superior Court Judge Richard Doughton ruled against Kalvin Michael Smith in January 2009 and allowed the state to write the opinion he issued, almost verbatim. I thought of that judge when anonymous judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals declined to review Judge Doughton's decision only five business days after the state filed its opposition. That struck me as an extraordinarily short period of time in which to decide that none of the issues warranted review. In my experience, that level of instant certainty on the part of judges has been rare, except in the criminal-justice system. I also think of the judge in Bundy's case every time Winston-Salem Police Chief Scott Cunningham explains why nothing that former Detective Don Williams failed to do ever matters. The members of the Silk Plant Forest Citizens Review Committee, after an exhaustive review of the police investigation of the case, unanimously concluded that they had no confidence in the investigation; seven members of the committee said there was no credible evidence that Smith was present at the Silk Plant Forest store when Jill Marker was attacked. On the basis of that report, Chief Cunningham has instituted numerous significant reforms in which cases are investigated. But he aggressively defends the results of the investigation; except for the many deficiencies, Smith's trial was fair enough. I also thought about the judge when I read the Journal's recent article on Jill Marker ("The aftermath of violence," March 20). The story is heartbreaking. But because I believe Kalvin Smith is innocent, I believe the person who so horribly assaulted Jill Marker is still free. Perhaps, like Williard Brown, who remained free while Darryl Hunt sat in prison, the person who attacked Marker has attacked others. Having escaped justice in her case, he likely feels invincible. Official certainty does not make us safe. Ask Williard Brown's previous victim, Regina Lane. I thought of the judge in the Bundy case when I spoke out against what Mike Nifong was doing in the Duke lacrosse case in 2006. I thought that case might be a wake-up call in North Carolina. The people being mistreated were not the usual suspects; as the mother of one student said, Nifong picked on the wrong people. The response was unprecedented. The North Carolina Bar intervened; Attorney General Roy Cooper intervened and declared the students innocent; and even some prosecutors criticized Nifong. But I was wrong. That kind of justice is not available for people like Kalvin Michael Smith. In his case and the cases of other faceless and powerless defendants, a different kind of justice prevails; one characterized by indifference to errors and intolerance for those who complain. I often tell the prisoners whose cases we investigate that as long as we believe they may be innocent, we will never give up the pursuit of justice. And, in the face of official certainty and indifference in the criminal-justice system, none of us who would mind living next door to a serial killer should ever give up. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Apr 3 2011, 06:03 AM Post #4 |
|
Professor Coleman should send this excellent essay to the NCNAACP, the Wilmington Press, Durham's Committee for Black Affairs, J4N, and the other various powers that be in NC Black Community. I wrote often during this case...that this Hoax should have been, SHOULD HAVE BEEN... the most incredibly powerful moment for racial unity and REAL judicial and legal progress in recent times. An "AHA!" moment, a wake-up call for those of us who have had little understanding of the rot in our justice system faced most often by poor, minority defendants....when we all STAND TOGETHER to demand change. What we MIGHT have achieved together! This should have been the moment when the stars aligned to make real progress, shake the system to the core. This should have been the moment when whatever the power and influence that the "Wrong Families" had to bring to these issues ...would have aligned with those in the Black community most often burdened by those issues. Imagine if Jesse Jackson had come to Durham to lead a protest against the railroading of three white Lacrosse players! Imagine if the NCNAACP had posted on its Website , not a screed of lies supporting Nifong...but a catalog of the abuses of Nifong...as they were unfolding. But the Durham Black community and the NCNAACP instead organized itself, put its muscle and political clout into the DEMAND for a trial based only on an allegation and NO evidence. This is where the decided THEIR interest was invested. Not in change, but in retribution. What a waste, A shameful waste. One that has yet to be admitted and addressed. I pleaded back in 2007: "You may say she is troubled. Reach a hand out to help her and ask us to assist. We are all vulnerable. Our troubled children come in all colors. But don't ask three young men to go to trial or to prison for her lies...to save face, to show racial unity, or to flex political muscle. . You may say you were duped by Nifong. Many of us were too. But don't give your tacit approval to Nifong's corrupted tactics because now you feel you can't turn back! You'll be haunted by that hypocrisy. Your approval NOW of this shameful Hoax will be a burden to be borne in the future by many others, your sons and daughters and ours. Individually, they each will have good cause to remember that YOU CONDONED CORRUPTION, and pushed it down the road TO THEM. You are sowing dangerous seeds here. . Don't make colluding with a conspiracy to railroad these boys, the only defense against being called "racist" by your Hoax "cohorts!" Don't make that word "racist" cheap and meaningless as you flail about, searching for some way to prop up Nifong and Crystal. You are flailing at old friends, true friends...friends with a history of staunchly standing by your side." But the desire for retribution, payback, the need for redress because the N-word had been said by one player...made the Black community among Nifong's most ardent supporters. As the case unfolded, sadly, I could tell by skin hue on any TV panel...what "side" for which that panelist would vociferously advocate. Someday, I'd like Prof. Coleman to address this tragic lost opportunity from THAT prospective. Now, 5 years later, imagine the force for change and justice we might all have been..together. Edited by Joan Foster, Apr 3 2011, 07:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 3 2011, 07:10 AM Post #5 |
|
How do you get "91%" out of a group of "about ten participants"? |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 3 2011, 07:22 AM Post #6 |
|
Provisional balloting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot |
![]() |
|
| Bill Anderson | Apr 3 2011, 07:26 AM Post #7 |
|
Good post, Joan. As I see it, the only people duped by Nifong were the people who WANTED to be duped. This case was about racial/feminist politics, period, and the way that sexual violence has been politicized. Politics is not about truth, but rather power. I always find it interesting that people who openly politicize race and sex speak about issues of power and who has it and who doesn't. Gee, who was powerless in Durham and at Duke? It certainly wasn't the feminist/racialist crowd; they held ALL of the cards and they had all of the legal apparatus behind them. It certainly wasn't the "Angry Studies" crowd. They controlled the administration, despite the fact that they represent an area of academe that is anything but scholarly. (There is a difference between obtuse prose and scholarship, or, to use their terminology, the intersection of obtuse prose and academic studies does NOT produce legitimate scholarship.) The "sexual violence" of which these people speak that occurs on college campuses is not the rape at gunpoint or knifepoint or through coercion (although feminists hold that all male-female relationships are based on coercion, which is nonsense), but rather is fueled by alcohol and, sometimes, other kinds of drugs. Women and men get drunk, get together, start pushing the limits, and the guy figures he is going to have sex. Sometimes the woman goes through without any mental resistance, but sometimes she says no, and sometimes she thinks no. Often, what we see is that the woman is in a supposedly committed relationship with someone else, and afterward, she is ashamed of her actions, so she claims rape. This is MUCH more common than one might think, and is the basis for a lot of rape accusations in our society today, and not just on college campuses. When I was at the University of Tennessee nearly 40 years ago, we had real-live rapes that occurred via coercion, usually to women who lived off-campus or who were walking alone. Sometimes the perps were caught, and sometimes they got away with it. But, we did not have administrators pushing this on-campus hysteria that every male student was a rapist, nor did we have sessions in which all relations between the sexes were presented in political terms. So, from what I see, we have made "progress."
|
![]() |
|
| Jack_Webb | Apr 3 2011, 08:15 AM Post #8 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Apr 3 2011, 09:07 AM Post #9 |
|
It appears the newspaper will not accept my post...so I have emailed Coleman. Dear Professor Coleman, First I would like to say that I am among the many who admire you tremendously. I lack the words to say how much your decision to be a voice of reason in the Duke Lacrosse hoax meant... to those of us who saw little reason or rational thinking anywhere else. I tried to respond to your op-ed, but apparently my post is considered unacceptable. Please read it in the context of my sincere admiration and respect. This is my comment: As a blogger, I wrote often during this case...that this Hoax should have been, SHOULD HAVE BEEN... the most incredibly powerful moment for racial unity and real judicial and legal progress in recent times. An "AHA!" moment, a wake-up call for those of us who have been IGNORANT...who have had little understanding of the rot in our justice system faced most often by poor, minority defendants. As the scales dropped from our eyes, what a force we might have become UNITED... standing together... to demand change. Professor Coleman should send this excellent essay to the NCNAACP, the Wilmington Press, Durham's Committee for Black Affairs, and the other various powers-that-be in NC Black Community. What we MIGHT have achieved together! The media hysteria had assembled a world-wide audience! Think of it! I understand that there was disdain that it took this situation, and these young men...to educate us...to elevate our sensitivities...but that sadly was the reality. But the opportunity of the moment is reality too. This should have been the moment when the stars aligned to make real progress, shake the system to the core. This should have been the moment when... whatever the power and influence that the "Wrong Families" had to bring to these issues ...would have aligned with those in the minority communities most often burdened by those issues. Imagine if Jesse Jackson had come to Durham to lead a protest against the railroading of three white Lacrosse players! Imagine if the NCNAACP had posted on its Website , not a screed of lies supporting Nifong...but a catalog of the abuses of Nifong...as they were unfolding. But the Durham Black community and the NCNAACP instead organized itself, put its muscle and political clout into the DEMAND for a trial based only on an allegation and NO evidence. This is where these individuals and entities decided THEIR interest was invested. Not in change, but in retribution. What a waste. A shameful waste. One that has yet to be admitted and addressed. I pleaded back in 2007: "You may say she (Mangum) is troubled. Reach a hand out to help her and ask us to assist. We are all vulnerable. Our troubled children come in all colors. But don't ask three young men to go to trial or to prison for her lies...to save face, to show racial unity, or to flex political muscle. . You may say you were duped by Nifong. Many of us were too. But don't give your tacit approval to Nifong's corrupted tactics because now you feel you can't turn back! You'll be haunted by that hypocrisy. Your approval NOW of this shameful Hoax will be a burden to be borne in the future by many others, your sons and daughters and ours. Individually, they each will have good cause to remember that YOU CONDONED CORRUPTION, and pushed it down the road TO THEM. You are sowing dangerous seeds here. . Don't make colluding with a conspiracy to railroad these boys, the only defense against being called "racist" by your Hoax "cohorts!" Don't make that word "racist" cheap and meaningless as you flail about, searching for some way to prop up Nifong and Crystal. You are flailing at old friends, true friends...friends with a history of staunchly standing by your side." The rest of that piece is here: http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/03/kimmy-factor.html But the desire for retribution, payback, the need for redress because the N-word had been said by one player...made the Black community among Nifong's most ardent supporters. As the case unfolded, sadly, I could tell by skin hue on any TV panel...what "side" for which that panelist would vociferously advocate. Maybe this was a media invention in how Advocates were assigned a side. Someday, I'd like Prof. Coleman to address this tragic lost opportunity from THAT prospective. Now, 5 years later, imagine the force for change and justice we might all have been..together." I will add this personal note that , of course, was not in my posting. Years ago, I was one of those kids that read "The Fire Next Time"and marched and thought we could change the world. I have not lived in "the gated community"...my beloved Goddaughter who lost her Mom at age 4 and is Godmother now herself to my only grandchild....has a skin hue exactly different from mine. "Skin hue"...what madness when you reduce it to all it is. But this case has taught me...that there are attitudes that MUST be confronted now in the Black community as well. But our PC culture demands we suppress and silence those comments. Reading the screed of lies that sat for over a year on the website of the NCNAACP...reminded me that I have read that abused children often become abusers. It was shameful and inexcusable. As was the inexplicable cocoon of support from the Black community that enveloped a rogue prosecutor..even as he abused Mr. Elmostafa...and , as we all watched, Nifong became a real-time tutorial of prosecutorial abuse. This has never addressed by anyone that could not be "dismissed." You are a person of the stature that could not be dismissed. I enjoyed your op-ed. Joan Foster |
![]() |
|
| cks | Apr 3 2011, 09:35 AM Post #10 |
|
Joan and Bill each made very excellent points. As long as African-Americans continue to view everything through the victim prism and as long as women use the prism of male hegemony through which to observe the world, there will be no progress in society. What always seems to be missing is the willingness to look beyond one's immediate prejudices and to take a deep breath and then begin to ask questions - uncomfortable ones, often, and then not try to pigeonhole the answers into some pre-ordained formula. Unfortunately, in the hoax, one had the perfect storm of all the pc elements able to promote their views and a press that was more than willing to be used combined with a politician on the make. A deadly mixture that would have, had it not been for many brave souls (Elmostafa - a true hero), excellent lawyers, dedicated parents, and intrepid souls whose blogging and writing awakened many to the injustice that was being perpetrated, resulted in the destruction of three young men. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Apr 3 2011, 09:56 AM Post #11 |
|
Joan, eloquent at 7 in the morning!
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 3 2011, 12:33 PM Post #12 |
|
An "opportunity wasted", but never fear, Hope and Change is here! |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 3 2011, 01:54 PM Post #13 |
|
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/04/latest-reason-to-play-rape-card-to.html Saturday, April 2, 2011 Latest Reason to Play the Rape Card: To Avoid a DUI Charge Another case that illustrates how false rape claims are used excuses for pretty much anything some women want to hide. Beth Ellen Rivera, 26, recently paroled from jail after pleading guilty to a drunk driving charge last year, fled the scene of a two-vehicle accident in Polk Township, Pennsylvania on Wednesday night, claiming that a man had raped her and that she was fleeing him. In fact, she fled to avoid another DUI arrest. She was nabbed and taken to a hospital where she refused to cooperate regarding the alleged rape. Troopers talked with Rivera's front-seat passenger, a woman who said Rivera was not raped and no one was chasing her, police said. Rivera was charged with driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an accident and making a false report to law enforcement officers. See the story here: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-stroudsburg-woman-accused-of-rape-20110402,0,2037348.story Remember the self-described Wiccan who murdered a man and claimed it was self-defense because, she alleged, he tried to rape her. The problem with her rape claim was that she had the man's name programmed in her cell phone under the word "sacrifice." See here: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/04/proof-that-wiccan-woman-intended-to.html Posted by Archivist at Saturday, April 02, 2011 |
![]() |
|
| genny6348 | Apr 3 2011, 02:23 PM Post #14 |
|
Genny6348
|
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 3 2011, 02:41 PM Post #15 |
|
http://fragmentsfromawritingdesk.blogspot.com/2011/04/richard-h-brodhead-selective-demonizer.html Sunday, April 3, 2011 RICHARD H. BRODHEAD: SELECTIVE DEMONIZER Richard Brodhead: Selective Demonizer We live amid demonizers, judging from Google: "Some Methodists Are on a Mission to Demonize Israel"--"Far Right Uses Foley Scandal to Demonize Gays"--"Anti-Immigrant Groups Borrow Playbook of Hate Groups To Demonize Hispanics." We talk so much about demonizing that we tend to think of all demonizing as metaphorical. When Richard Brodhead as Dean of Yale College called me a "demon-researcher" in the New York Times on 23 June 2002, I did not take it literally. Belatedly, I believe that Brodhead was revealing more about himself than he realized, and that earlier at Yale and later as President of Duke University he has practiced an almost literal demonization, mainly of a particular class of people. I see the pattern in Melvillean terms. Saturated in the Bible, Melville used Saul's jealousy of young David in portraying Radney and Claggart. In Moby-Dick, Ishmael, when telling "The Town-Ho's Story," elaborately accounts for Radney's jealousy of Steelkilt: "Now, as you well know, it is not seldom the case in this conventional world of ours--watery or otherwise; that when a person placed in command over his fellow-men finds one of them to be very significantly his superior in general pride of manhood, straightway against that man he conceives an unconquerable dislike ad bitterness; and if he have a chance he will pull down and pulverize that subaltern's tower, and make a little heap of dust of it." Radney, "ugly as a mule," is jealousy of Steelkilt, "a tall and noble animal with a head like a Roman, and a flowing golden beard like the tasseled housings of your last viceroy's snorting charger; and a brain, and a heart, and a soul in him, gentlemen, which had made Steelkilt Charlemagne, had he been born son to Charlemagne's father." Again, in Billy Budd, Melville explains that what first moved the master-at-arms Claggart against "the Handsome Sailor" was Billy's "significant personal beauty." Claggart's envy of Billy "struck deeper" than the "apprehensive jealousy that marred Saul's visage perturbedly brooding on the comely young David." At least twice, the pattern repeated by Brodhead involves jealousy of personal strength and beauty, but intermixed with something not in Melville, jealousy of unconventional intelligence based on real-world experience. Brodhead never once went looking for a job in a tough competitive market, never adapted to the peculiarities of work-places around the country, never mixed it up intellectually and aesthetically with people other than his own teachers and fellow students and their kind. Older colleagues treat such an untested person with a mixture of pride and disdain: one of ours, yes, an exemplary New Critic, almost as good as we were at that age, but he couldn't leave the nest. Such a cosseted professor at middle age may envy those who took a more strenuous and rewarding way, especially those who did such original work that they learned to think independently, and often to fight their way to higher salaries year by year. Then if such an untested person as Brodhead is put into a position of power, long suppressed phantoms, repressed envy for those who led a more adventurous life of body and mind, may disembark from his soul. He may turn corrosive envy into demonizing the envied, even as he revels in a newly acquired power to punish. After a ghastly murder at Yale, Brodhead summoned the young instructor James Van de Velde into his office at Yale. Van de Velde was a brilliant teacher, a Marine, a man of world experience, a man with a burgeoning career as a television political talking head-- an athlete, a marathon man, a body builder, an expert in martial arts. Brodhead had a list of suspects from the New Haven Police Department (not a highly trained and famously ethical group) that included Van de Velde's name because he had an undeniable connection with the slain woman: he was advising her thesis on the threat posed by Osama ben Laden. A dean who knew the world first hand might have called the athletic young scholar in and discussed how to handle the fantasies of the New Haven police, discussed what sort of statement he could issue to keep the teacher from being injured by incompetent police work and outrageous leaks to the press. "I'll come with you to your next class, if you like, and talk straight to the students about the gossip," he could have said. Instead, Brodhead, stuttering, fumbling, cancelled his class, and did not renew his appointment. At his lowest, Van de Velde declared that his life had been ruined. Brodhead treated Van de Velde as a demon who had to be banished from Yale. Brodhead did not put himself on record as seeing Van de Velde as demon murderer, but in 2006, as President of Duke University, he publicly showed his hostility toward the Duke lacrosse players, particularly those falsely accused of gang raping a female black stripper. In March 2006 Brodhead accused the players of "bad behavior, boorish behavior, immature behavior, and inappropriate behavior." In an April 5 letter to the Duke community, he declared that the "acts the police are investigating" (real acts, not "alleged" acts, notice) were "only part of the problem." The "episode" had "brought to glaring visibility underlying issues" such as "concerns of women about sexual coercion and assault," "concerns about the culture of certain groups that regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups promote," and "concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the most hateful feature American history has produced." Worse, the lacrosse episode had highlighted "the deep structures of inequality in our society--inequalities of wealth, privilege, and opportunity (including educational opportunity), and the attitudes of superiority those inequalities breed." If the young men had not gang-raped the young woman (a mother working her way through college), whatever they did to her "was bad enough." What was bad of course was Brodhead's rush to judgment, like the Yale rush to condemn Van de Velde. Van de Velde and the lacrosse players had in common high intellectual abilities (brilliance, in Van de Velde's case, and at least some of the lacrosse players) and physical agility and power. Van de Velde practiced martial arts which require headguard and faceguard. In Brodhead's fervid imagination had he worn his helmet when he went ravaging out into the New Haven darkness? And did Brodhead envision the lacrosse players as ancient warriors storming under Montefortino helmets, Thracian helmets, Agen-Port helmets? Helmeted warriors, were they, unbelievably dangerous in their power, and all the more dangerous because they were excellent students and (except for hiring a stripper), gentlemanly young fellows. Brodhead the power to render all these stalwart young warriors impotent. He could fire their general, the altogether admirable Michael Pressler, the chief of the helmeted hoard, playing Richard II: "Therefore we banish you our territories!" He could toy with the helmeted lacrosse army, at first making them forfeit a game or two. Then, Brodhead could echo Richard II at his haughtiest: "LET THEM LAY BY THEIR HELMETS AND THEIR SPEARS." That showed them: he could cancel the season, make them lay their helmets aside. Here was rich power--the President of Duke University as King Richard before his play-acting caught up with him and he was forced to abdicate. When you are demonizing your victim, who may well be your superior in general pride of manhood, you seize your chance to pull down and pulverize that subaltern's tower, and make a little heap of dust of it. You do not search the records for mitigating or outright extenuating circumstances. There was no evidence against Van de Velde at all. Brodhead "took pains to avoid exposure" to the exonerating evidence at Duke. "The parents assured Brodhead that the DA's files would show him that the criminal charges were false. Brodhead refused to look at them or assign a subordinate to look. Ironically, even as he went out of his way to avoid examining the discovery information, Brodhead publicly complained about his difficulties in having to base decisions on incomplete information" (Taylor and Johnson, Until Proven Innocent, 132-133). Brodhead's selective blindness continues. In February 2008, when Duke welcomed a sex show to campus, he refused to look at documents about the show which Ken Larrey wanted to show him. Knowing the way Brodhead had turned his eyes away from proof of the lacrosse players' innocence, Larrey boldly read the document aloud to Brodhead. How I fit in is harder to see. I am far older than Brodhead and never, even half a century or more ago, looked like Steelkilt or Billy. I had handsome older brothers, one who came out with the Cherokee and Choctaw predominant, the next pure German-Scot, while I was the dishwater blond with a broken nose, acne, and tuberculosis. However, I was the tallest, and in December 1996 when the New York Times Magazine printed a color picture of me in my study the writer declared me to be "handsome." Could the Times be wrong? Was that enough to incite jealousy? Simply by conducting biographical research, all but forbidden at Yale since 1953, when Stanley T. Williams retired, was I threatening to a man whose career had been built on superficial "research"? Was he jealous, and fearful of having it known that his his own academic writing had been, after all, insubstantial? Was he half aware, already, that, for example, he had published The School of Hawthorne without having read widely enough to know just who the pupils really were, aside from a few long-famous white men? Could Brodhead's calling me a "demon-researcher" be a witty exaggeration, a backhanded compliment, a nod to my hard work? No, he thought I was a demon because I worked in the archives, decade after decade, as no one had done at Yale since the great students of Williams in the 1940s. Brodhead was naive, unguarded, in demonizing, slipping, as when an unsubtle dramatist has his Frankenstein's monster slip and call his maker "Father." In a slip like Brodhead's, Albert Rothenberg would say, material derived from unconscious sources is presented "directly" in the piece of writing. Brodhead's jealousy was such that he had to show that my demonic quest had ended in wreck like crazy Ahab's. The way to do, for clever Brodhead, was to allege that I had invented two lost books I discussed, The Isle of the Cross (1853) and Poems (1860). I was a demonic-researcher who could not be trusted, after all my demonic work. In order to imply that I made up the books Brodhead had to shut his eyes to the evidence that earlier scholars had accumulated over the decades. The pattern is clear: he had to deny the existence of the great Yale scholars from the 1940s who had worked on the book Melville finished in 1853 (although I did not find the title until 1987) and all the other scholars, beginning in 1922, who had published and republished the documents about the book Melville called "Poems." On the pages of my biography were quoted new and old documents about The Isle of the Cross and old documents about Poems. Just as he turned away from the documents proving the innocence of the lacrosse players, just as he turned away from the documents about the sex show at Duke (where a performer kneeled on all fours with a lighted sparkler stuck in his rectum while "America the Beautiful" played), he shut his eyes to the evidence in order to demonize me. I mean he literally shut his eyes to the words on the pages of the book he was being paid to review! I mean, for instance, Herman Melville’s list of instructions about publishing POEMS! I was a fearsome researcher, a demon-researcher who had to be crushed into a little heap of dust. In 2004 Duke needed someone who had a lifelong history of dealing deftly with tough, gnarled issues whether aesthetic, intellectual, social, or political. Duke needed someone capable of rising up in extraordinary circumstances and by God doing the right thing, right then, out of experience, powerful instinct, or innate majesty of soul. Instead, Duke got Richard H. Brodhead. He is what some of us always knew he was. Now in April 2011 he faces the DISCOVERY process on strong charges of obstruction of justice and constructive fraud. Is James Van de Velde surprised? Is Michael Pressler surprised, are any of the falsely-accused lacrosse players surprised that Judge Beaty found strong reason to think these charges are sustainable in court? All that concerns me is how many of the 2006 documents will have proved impossible to lay hand on, just now, just at the moment the plaintiffs' lawyers need them for DISCOVERY. Will there be new charges stemming from failure to produce documents? If so, who will be demonized then? Posted by Hershel Parker at 12:30 PM |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







3:31 AM Jul 11