| Blog and Media Roundup - Monday, February 24, 2014; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 24 2014, 05:07 AM (328 Views) | |
| abb | Feb 24 2014, 05:07 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/02/24/defense-duke In defense of Duke brave new world By Ellie Schaack | February 24, 2014 This week, Cosmopolitan Magazine published an article about Duke’s latest scandal—the oftentimes-upsetting response to the news that a member of the freshman class also happens to be a porn star. The article began as follows: “It's no small feat being known as the infamously worst college for women in a country where a number of respected colleges cover up sexual assault reports, but then there's Duke University. The elite North Carolina college has a heinous reputation for slut-shaming, double standards and overall sexual hostility towards their female students.” And we do—have a heinous reputation, at least. In 2011, The Atlantic wrote: “Something ugly is going on at [Duke] University.” The “glittering social world” dominated by unintellectual, casually racist and sexually demeaning alpha males, they wrote, would “offer any parent ample reason to think twice before sending a beloved child to Duke.” In 2009, GQ released a list of the “douchiest colleges” in America. Duke was ranked second. “They’re probably number one,” GQ wrote, “but we’d rather not rank Duke number one at anything.” Woah. This reputation is a sharp contrast to the Duke I know—home of the Me Too Monologues and Common Ground and Who Needs Feminism, home of the five hours of PACT training I received last year and the fabulous Women’s Center and, after a few years of student activism, “one of the most extreme college sexual assault policies in history.” To me, the dominant conversation hasn’t been one of “slut-shaming, double standards and overall sexual hostility”—it’s been a backlash against it. So why are we still characterized this way? One possibility is that that these initiatives are responses to an unusually toxic campus culture that remains dominant. Maybe Duke students generally are uncommonly crude, uncommonly racist, uncommonly misogynistic—maybe the social group I surround myself with has shielded me from this reality. But I think another possibility is more likely. The Duke lacrosse scandal still looms over campus. The lesson that the world learned from the scandal was that Duke was a toxic environment for women, a land of misogynistic douchery in excess. But the few who paid attention through the case’s end learned another lesson, too: We learned how easily people assign narratives to events and people and places. We saw privileged white athletes callously partying at their elite university. We saw an underprivileged black stripper trying to make ends meet. The narrative that made sense was that the men were taking advantage of her—not that she was taking advantage of them. And the world clung to that narrative, abandoning the principle of innocent until proven guilty, considering the social commentary inherent in the story evidence enough. The University as a whole has taken on the characterization of the accused lacrosse players. The narrative that now makes sense is the story of the dominance of the Dukebag: the rich, white, smart-but-unintellectual misogynist unaware of his privilege. But, like the lacrosse case, the reality of the situation is more complex. “Slut-shaming, double standards, and overall sexual hostility” exist on this campus—of course they do. But I’d argue that they are not Duke problems. They’re societal problems. We don’t live on a campus where rape culture dominates, where women make less than men for the same work and where we subconsciously assert that women should be submissive and men should be dominant. We live in a world where rape culture dominates, where women make less than men for the same work and where we subconsciously assert that women should be submissive and men should be dominant. But when we see manifestations of these issues at Duke just like we would everywhere else, they get enormous amounts of attention because they confirm the Dukebag narrative. Believing that Duke’s faults make it unusual is an appealing story. Changing the culture in a place where the population is measured in thousands, not billions, is a much kinder task to take on. But it’s simply not true. Cosmopolitan demonized the Duke campus’s response to Lauren’s reveal. They described how she was “outed by her classmate as a porn actress” and “is now facing Internet humiliation and rape threats.” This is terrible—it is so far from OK. But do we really believe that the reaction would have been different somewhere else? That Yale or UNC or Brigham Young University would have universally welcomed a porn star with open arms? And, while the focus has been on the negative response, she’s seen broad support, too—the article she wrote was, as of last Saturday, tweeted nearly 1,500 times and liked on Facebook over 600 times. When I saw it shared, it was accompanied by expressions of admiration for the grace with which she was handling the situation. So parents? Don’t think twice about sending your child to Duke. There are a lot of screwed up norms on this campus—just like there are everywhere else. We’re just lucky enough to be so infamous that we confront them regularly. And, to the women who are about to be accepted into the Class of 2018: Don’t let the articles mislead you. Unlike the writers of those articles, my sample size of the experiences of Duke women is enormous, and I say chances are you’re going to love it here. Ellie Schaack is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every other Monday. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 24 2014, 05:07 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/02/24/duke-lacrosse-tops-pennsylvania-and-stony-brook-stay-undefeated Duke lacrosse tops Pennsylvania and Stony Brook to stay undefeated By Brian Mazur | February 24, 2014 Duke passed a pair of weekend tests to move to 4-0 in the month of February for the first time since 2008. The No. 1 Blue Devils kicked off the weekend by downing No. 16 Pennsylvania 9-6 Friday night at Koskinen Stadium. Duke had previously lost two of its past three matchups against the Quakers, including a 14-9 loss in Philadelphia last season. The Blue Devils then cruised past Stony Brook Sunday afternoon, notching a 14-6 victory. “As we play games we put them to rest right afterwards, but the [4-0] start in February feels great,” senior attack Josh Dionne said. “We had a competition between the Penn senior class and our senior class, so it was good to get a win in our backyard. I just give a lot of credit to our seniors on that one.” Blue Devil goalie Luke Aaron, who made his first-career start against Pennsylvania, made seven first-half saves in the net. The sophomore finished with 11 saves and stopped 65 percent of his shots against the Quakers (0-1) before following that up with another 11-save performance against the Sea Wolves. After backing up Kyle Turri last season during Duke's national championship run, Aaron’s strong play has propelled him into a starting role in between the pipes. “Luke has been really under control,” Duke head coach John Danowski said. “He is having fun and playing very relaxed. He is playing like a senior, like a guy who has been around.” Even though this was the season-opener for Pennsylvania, which had weeks to prepare for the game, the Blue Devils got off to a quick start. Duke (4-0) netted four first-quarter goals, including two that came in the first four minutes of the game. Each side tightened up defensively in the second quarter, with neither team able to find the net in the first 14 minutes of the period. Both teams had open looks at the net, but the play of both goalies kept the scoring at bay. The Quaker defense, which allowed 11 shots in the first period, slashed that number to four in the second quarter. Senior goalkeeper and All-America honorable mention Brian Feeney helped hold Duke scoreless in the second quarter by making three saves. With just 10 seconds to play in the second quarter, Pennsylvania executed a play out of a timeout and found a way to work the ball past Aaron to cut the lead to one goal heading into the locker room. In the second half, the Blue Devils regained momentum when senior attack Jordan Wolf opened the scoring with a no-look goal that was featured at No. 3 on SportsCenter's Top 10 Saturday morning. The resilient Quakers kept the Duke lead at one when Kevin Brown scored to cut the deficit to 5-4. With Pennsylvania closing in on the Blue Devil lead, Dionne once again provided the offensive spark, scoring two more goals off assists from Deemer Class and Kyle Keenan on the wing. This helped Duke extend the lead to 9-5. “I felt like I was moving around a little bit too much on the inside, so I slowed down and let the game come to me," Dionne said. "I thought [Kyle] Keenan, Deemer [Class] and the wings did an incredible job of drawing the double.” Wolf tied a career high by notching seven points against Stony Brook (1-2). Adding to the milestones in Duke's blowout victory, Dionne scored his 100th goal with 6:07 to play in the first quarter. Duke managed another strong start against the Sea Wolves, scoring seven goals on 19 shots and holding Stony Brook scoreless in the first half. Defenseman Casey Carroll helped keep the Sea Wolves off the scoreboard with five ground balls and five forced turnovers. Stony Brook netted two goals early in the third quarter to cut the lead to six, but the Blue Devils responded in the final two minutes of the quarter with two goals from Matheis and Dionne. Duke was able to maintain the lead with four more goals in the final period. The Blue Devils' 4-0 start is a far cry from the team's 2-4 start in 2013, which left the team's postseason hopes hanging in the balance early. After leaving their early-season struggles behind en route to a national championship, Duke continues to play with the mindset that these early results—good or bad—won't define the team's season. “We don’t look at records,” Danowski said. “We just look at how we are playing.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 24 2014, 05:08 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/02/unc-retains-attorney-for-investigation-of-department-of-african-and-afro-american-studies UNC retains attorney for investigation of Department of African and Afro-American Studies By Andy Willard | The Daily Tar Heel The new administration is treading territory very familiar to its predecessors. UNC Chancellor Carol Folt announced Friday that the University has retained an outside attorney who will conduct another investigation into academic misconduct in the former Department of African and Afro-American Studies. After the scandals came to light, it was renamed the Department of African, African American and Diaspora Studies. According to a press release from Folt and UNC-system President Tom Ross, the latest probe was jointly initiated in response to information shared with the University by Orange County District Attorney Jim Woodall. UNC spokeswoman Karen Moon said the administration is not ready to give details as to how the investigation will be conducted. Woodall has been using the findings of the State Bureau of Investigation which looked into the department’s academic policies. The University has not provided the information to the public. “We — the UNC Board of Governors, UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees, Chancellor Folt and I — have said all along that we would re-evaluate next steps once the SBI had completed its investigation,” Ross said in the release. Scrutiny of the department began in May of 2012, when UNC released a report that detailed academic fraud and irregularities among several African and Afro-American courses primarily between 2007 and 2009. Former Chancellor Holden Thorp responded to the scandal in a similar manner when it was revealed under his leadership. In August 2012, he tapped former Gov. Jim Martin to lead a similar review. After his research, Martin concluded that the cases of fraud were isolated and primarily perpetrated by former department chairman Julius Nyang’oro and former department administrator Deborah Crowder. According to the release, the University will cooperate with Kenneth Wainstein to resolve any questions left unresolved by the previous scrutiny. The press release went on to say that Wainstein, the attorney investigating the department, had no timeline to finish his examination. “We have directed Mr. Wainstein to ask the tough questions, follow the facts wherever they lead, and get the job done,” Folt said in the release. Wainstein, who is a partner at a law firm in Washington, D.C., has extensive experience working with the federal government. He has worked with the Justice Department for 19 years, holding several different leadership positions including the Assistant Attorney General for National Security and Homeland Security Advisor. Board of Trustees Chairman Lowry Caudill said in an email Folt and Ross have the support of the University’s leading body of policy-makers. “The Board of Trustees supports the decision of Chancellor Folt and President Ross to have an independent party evaluate the materials that the DA is making available,” he said. university@dailytarheel.com |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 24 2014, 06:59 AM Post #4 |
|
Just what Steel, Brodhead, Burness, and the Duke PR machine had in mind... (sarc/off) (sometimes justice comes in small doses...) |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 24 2014, 07:37 AM Post #5 |
|
Brodhead will forever be branded with the Scarlet Letter of The Frame. There's no way it will wash off, ever. If we at Liestoppers have done nothing else, we've been largely responsible for that bit of justice. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 24 2014, 08:22 AM Post #6 |
|
"I wear the chain I forged in life,'' replied the Ghost. ``I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it." It didn't have to be this way; Brodhead could have been mentioned in the same breath with Judge Horton. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Feb 24 2014, 10:02 AM Post #7 |
|
What is surprising to me is that these students in 2014 dare totally aware of the Duke hoax and understand that RCD got screwed by their own university. Now that's reporting. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 24 2014, 09:17 PM Post #8 |
|
February 24, 2014 More Disturbing News from California Posted by KC Johnson An update regarding the issue of campus due process and sexual assault allegations in California: FIRE has a powerful statement condemning SB 967, the California bill designed to codify (and go beyond) the anti-due process approach of the OCR's "Dear Colleague" letter. FIRE correctly observes that while campus administrators "are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations," the California legislature seems intent on entrusting "them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result." The statement calls into question the sponsors' impartiality, noting that the bill repeatedly uses the term "victim," as if the mere leveling of a sexual assault allegation makes someone a victim. FIRE also notes that while SB 967 purports to mandate adjudication of campus sexual assault claims according to the standard of civil litigation, unlike accused students on campus, civil trials feature "impartial judges, unbiased juries of one's peers, representation by counsel, mandatory 'discovery' processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury." Finally, FIRE observes the impossibility of enforcing the bill's "affirmative consent" standard. Hans Bader echoes these sentiments in a letter to the Sacramento Bee, observing that the bill's allowance of anonymous sexual assault complaints would effectively deny accused students all right to cross-examine their accuser. The sponsors of the bill, however, have shown no signs of backing down--though they're struggling to offer a consistent argument. The measure's chief sponsor in the California Senate, Kevin de León, recently expressed his pleasure that there was now "more attention on this pressing issue - Sexual assault is 'a crime; it's a simple, straightforward crime.'" Yet his bill treats sexual assault as anything but a "a simple, straightforward crime." It mandates conviction through a preponderance of evidence standard--unlike all other crimes in California. It defines sexual assault on campus (the "affirmative consent" standard) differently from the state's general sexual assault statute, which contains no such provision. It remains silent on whether students accused of sexual assault on campus have a right to an attorney--a right that would be constitutionally required if campus sexual assault were, in fact, "a simple, straightforward crime." According to one of the bill's co-sponsors, however, none of this is problematic: Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson recently approvingly tweeted an article from Ms. that claimed SB 967 will make California a "national leader" on how state governments should legislate on campus sexual assault claims. To date, no member of the California legislature has expressed opposition to SB 967. - See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/02/more_disturbing_news_from_cali.html#sthash.80tP2hGv.dpuf |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:36 PM Jul 10