Having been asked either to retract their full-page ad published in The Chronicle [the independent Duke University student newspaper] last April or to acknowledge the consistently exculpatory evidence that has accumulated since then, the Group of 88 - or at least some of them - has finally taken the pulpit again. But not to retract even a syllable. Not to acknowledge dismissal of the rape charge. Not to assail the prosecutor who recused himself from the Duke case in disgrace as he faced a proceeding that may lead to his disbarment. Not to excoriate the twists and turns in the stripper's story. Not to say what the world knows - she lied [which even liberal feminist law professor/rape victim Susan Estrich finally said].
The stripper [aka Crystal Gail Mangum] lied when she said she had been raped. The only semen in her body came from at least four men, none a lacrosse player. She lied when she said one of her targets had a mustache. She lied when she said another was present and involved in the rape, as multiple records and witnesses put him elsewhere. [These days Ms. Mangum is claiming that she can't be sure whether it was a male sex organ or a broomstick supposedly inserted inside her and thinks of five o'clock shadows as mustaches.]
Despite having been moved to action by the stripper's mendacity last April, despite witnessing the injustice of indicting and suspending three Duke students, apparently almost mall members of the Group of 88 remain firmly fixed on a mission.
And what is that mission? It is to use the stripper's story as a springboard for labeling white Duke students as racists, sexists, and violent. To that proposition the Group of 88 remains unwaveringly wed.
Let us examine, first, their April 2006 "Listening Statement," from The Chronicle:
"These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman...."
Apparently it was too much to say "allegedly" or "supposedly." Just a nod in the direction of the presumption of innocence was more than the 88 could muster.
"This is much bigger than them and throwing them out will not solve the problem."
Why quote someone who suggests expulsion of those presumed innocent?
"What has happened, is a disaster.... Like all disasters, this one has a history."
The implication is clear: "what has happened" refers to the stripper's story - rape. By refusing to say "what supposedly happened," the 88 accepted her lie as the truth. And then suggested that similar crimes - white rape of black women - are historically associated with life at Duke. Even a prosecutor in closing argument could not ask the jury to consider centuries-old, even decades old, even days old tales of misconduct by someone other than the accused. But the 88 know no bounds.
"This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists....It’s part of the experience."
What is not a different experience? Can the 88 mean anything other than rape? That was what the stripper said she experienced. And the 88 quotes someone saying - nothing new about that at Duke!
"We’re turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."
The vulnerable ones, we knew then and know now, are those unlucky enough to have been picked from a lineup on the third try by a stripper allowed only to choose lacrosse players. But the 88 has yet to come to the aid of these 3 or their teammates, though they, we know to a moral certainty, are the only victims.
We know, too, that some protestors endorsed by the 88 - the 88 endorsed indiscriminately, one and all - erroneously prejudged and set out to terrify the members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team, as exemplified by that "Castrate" banner.
Anyone who still defends that ad in the revealing glare of what we know today is an embarrassment to Duke, to academia, and to black people everywhere. At a time when Duke students, faculty and administrators should have been circling protectively around fellow students presumed innocent, the 88 chose to fan the flames of racism. They did so knowing their conduct would fuel the frenzied outcries of those who presumed guilt. But the 88 could not miss this opportunity to call Duke a racist institution and its students a racist lot. Maybe there would be a time, later, for saying something about the presumption of innocence. Not now. Now it would get in the way of a greater goal - to foment racial strife making collateral damage unavoidable.
Let us turn, now, to the return of the 88 (set forth in full herein):
"The criminal proceedings and the media frenzy which followed are perhaps beginning to wind down. For us at Duke, the issues raised by the incident, and by our community's responses to it, are not."
I know they can read. I'd bet anything they own televisions. How, then, have they missed it? This story remains front and center all over the country.
It is true that Nifong's retreat should signal an end to this hoax. But the Group of 88 does not want to let go. Instead of decrying the injustice of this prosecution and calling for an end to it, the Group of 88 continues to suggest that "the incident" raises racial issues. Do they have mirrors? Look into the Group of 88, and you will see the source of racial strife. That a stripper told a lie raised racial issues only because people presumed the lies true.
Has the Group of 88 investigated the events of that night? Do its members erroneously think someone asked for black strippers? Do they think anyone at Duke had anything to do with these two women's decisions to dance? Do they fault all who enjoy strippers, or only those who enjoy black strippers? Would they ever, under any circumstances, fault the strippers?
If they want to attack immorality, why don't the 88 start with strippers? Isn't that wrong, at least as wrong as watching? If strippers didn't strip, no one would watch. It's not a chicken and egg problem. If it's a problem, it begins with the strippers, doesn't it?
But not for the 88. That a black stripper showed up to strip for young men who happened to be white is evidence of all that is wrong with Duke, say the 88. Evidently Duke does not require its professors to demonstrate mastery of logic 101.
"We understand the ad instead as a call to action on important, longstanding issues on and around our campus, an attempt to channel the attention generated by the incident to addressing these."
Did the 88 stop to think that by proclaiming Duke a bastion of racism in the context of the stripper's sordid story, they could only be understood as saying, "Duke boys, there you go again"? Any link between racism and the alleged rape could only be interpreted as presuming guilt and asserting that at Duke, white men regularly commit these sorts of offenses against black women. The 88 are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but surely they're sharp enough to appreciate this much.
"We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence."
One who stands behind that principle doesn't just salute it. He says, now, in print as big as that in the Listening Statement, something like this: "We listened, as we said we would, and not just to the black students at Duke quoted in our ad last April. We listened also to the evidence. We are convinced that you are innocent, as we all should have presumed all along. Had that presumption been honored and defended, you would have been spared the suffering you have endured. We are with you."
But the 88 have their sights set on something other than innocence. They are still selling guilt - that of all white students at Duke, who still, say the 88, are sexist, racist, and violent.
"The disaster is the atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus."
The 88 are talking about the Duke campus. A place where racists reside. Sexists. Violent people. All white, of course. While the rest of the world is focused on the stripper's mendacity and Nifong's retreat, the 88 is still fanning flames of racial strife, still using the stripper's story as their springboard.
"We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time."
Which ones, pray tell, are you ready to reject? Any? How about this one: the chanting in court of "Dead man walking"? Or this one: 88er Houston Baker publicly denouncing “abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us” and urging the “immediate dismissals” of “the team itself and its players"?
Is it too much to ask that you use your bully pulpit to decry bad behavior that originates from those who reject the presumption of innocence to which you pay lip service? Evidently so.
"...a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case."
There you go again: "the rape case." What rape case, 88? There isn't one. Nifong himself dismissed it because the stripper decided maybe it was a broom, not a penis, which explains why the semen inside her came from at least 4 who were not lacrosse players. Deposited during a period when the stripper said she was celibate.
Who among us would want his child taught by one of the 88? What would they learn? To hate, I suppose. To see racism behind every tree. But not to think. Not to reason. Not to be fair, or empathetic, or intellectually honest. And not to be colorblind.
The Hoax has been exposed.
The Duke case is collapsing in stages.
But some never learn or admit that they were wrong.
Herewith the entire follow up on Duke University's gruesome Group of 88's infamous "Social Disaster" ad, an utterly unapologetic open letter to the Duke Community (written with an expectation of impunity, of course):
"In the spring of 2006, the Duke community was rocked by terrible news. We heard that a woman hired to perform at a party thrown by our lacrosse team had accused members of the team of raping her. Neighbors, we were told, heard racial epithets called out at the woman as she departed the party. The criminal proceedings and the media frenzy which followed are perhaps beginning to wind down. For us at Duke, the issues raised by the incident, and by our community's responses to it, are not.
"In April, a group of Duke faculty members published an advertisement in The Chronicle. The ad, titled 'What does a Social Disaster Sound Like?' was mostly a compilation of statements made by Duke students in response to the incident and its immediate aftermath. This ad has figured in many discussions of the event and of the University's response. It has been broadly, and often intentionally, misread. We urge everyone to read the original ad, available at http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm. We have. Some of us were among the ad's signers.
"The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused. Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case. We understand the ad instead as a call to action on important, longstanding issues on and around our campus, an attempt to channel the attention generated by the incident to addressing these. We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.
"As a statement about campus culture, the ad deplores a 'Social Disaster,' as described in the student statements, which feature racism, segregation, isolation, and sexism as ongoing problems before the scandal broke, exacerbated by the heightened tensions in its immediate aftermath. The disaster is the atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus. The ad's statement that the problem 'won't end with what the police say or the court decides' is as clearly true now as it was then. Whatever its conclusions, the legal process will not resolve these problems.
"The ad thanked 'the students speaking individually and...the protesters making collective noise.' We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.
"There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these. We think the ad's authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case.
"We stand by the claim that issues of race and sexual violence on campus are real, and we join the ad's call to all of us at Duke to do something about this. We hope that the Duke community will emerge from this tragedy as a better place for all of us to live, study, and work."
Question: What POSITIVE about this malignant missive can be said?
Answer: As an example of denying reality, rewriting history, wallowing in self-pity and missing the main point, at least it's NOT as bad as this infamous political testament written a bit more than sixty years ago under more stressful conditions:
"Since 1914, when as a volunteer, I made my modest contribution in the World War which was forced upon the Reich, over thirty years have passed.
"In these three decades, only love for my people and loyalty to my people have guided me in all my thoughts, actions, and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions, such as no mortal has yet had to face. I have exhausted my time, my working energy, and my health in these three decades.
"It is untrue that I or anybody else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made so many offers for the reduction and elimination of armaments, which posterity cannot explain away for all eternity, that the responsibility for the outbreak of this war cannot rest on me. Furthermore, I never desired that after the first terrible World War a second war should arise against England or even against America. Centuries may pass, but out of the ruins of our cities and monuments of art there will arise anew the hatred for the people who alone are ultimately responsible: International Jewry and its helpers!
"As late as three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish War, I proposed to the British Ambassador in Berlin a solution for the German-Polish problem -- similar to the problem of the Saar area, under international control. This offer cannot be explained away, either. It was only rejected because the responsible circles in English politics wanted the war, partly in the expectation of business advantages, partly driven by propaganda promoted by international Jewry.
"But I left no doubt about the fact that if the peoples of Europe were again only regarded as so many packages of stock shares by these international money and finance conspirators, then that race, too, which is the truly guilty party in this murderous struggle would aiso have to be held to account: the Jews! I further left no doubt that this time we would not permit millions of European children of Aryan descent to die of hunger, nor millions of grown-up men to suffer death, nor hundreds of thousands of women and children to be burned and bombed to death in their cities, without the truly guilty party having to atone for its guilt, even if through more humane means.
"After six years of struggle, which in spite of all reverses will go down in history as the most glorious and most courageous manifestation of a people’s will to live, I cannot separate myself from the city which is the capital of this Reich. Because our forces are too few to permit any further resistance against the enemy’s assaults, and because individual resistance is rendered valueless by blinded and characterless scoundrels, I desire to share the fate that millions of others have taken upon themselves, in that I shall remain in this city. Furthermore, I do not want to fail into the hands of enemies who for the delectation of the hate-riddled masses require a new spectacle promoted by the Jews.
"I have therefore resolved to remain in Berlin and there to choose death of my own will at the very moment when, as I believe, the seat of the Fuehrer and Chancellor can no longer be defended. I die with a joyful heart in the awareness the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, of our women at home, the achievements of our peasants and workers, and the contribution, unique in history, of our youth, which bears my name.
"It goes without saying that I thank them all from the bottom of my heart and that it is also my desire that in spite of everything they should not give up the struggle, but continue fighting wherever they may be, faithful to the great Clausewitz, against the enemies of the Fatherland. From the sacrifices of our soldiers and from my own comradeship with them, there will come in one way or another into German history the seed of a brilliant renaissance of the National Socialist movement and thus the realization of a true national community.
"Many very brave men and women have resolved to link their lives to mine to the very end. I have requested them, and finally ordered them, not to do so, but instead to take part in the continuing struggle of the nation. I ask the commanders of the army, navy, and air force to strengthen by all possible means the spirit of resistance of our soldiers in the spirit of National Socialism, emphasizing especially that I too, as founder and creator of this movement, have preferred death to cowardly flight or even capitulation.
"May it be one day a part of the code of honor; as it is already in the navy, that the surrender of an area or of a town is impossible, and above all in this respect the leaders should give a shining example of faithful devotion to duty unto death....
“Socialist state represents the labor of the coming centuries, and this places every single person under an obligation always to serve the common interest and to subordinate his own interests. I demand of all Germans, all National Socialists, men and women and all soldiers of the Armed Forces, that they remain faithful and obedient to the new government and to their President unto death.
"Above all, I charge the leadership of the nation and their followers with the strict observance of the racial laws and with merciless resistance against the universal poisoners of all peoples, international Jewry."
Hitler scapegoated the Jews; the Group, whites.
The persons in grave danger after the ludicrous gang rape charge was made and widely believed were the white members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team, not blacks in Durham or at Duke. Unlike (apparently) one of the persons quoted by the 88 in their ad, the lacrossers appreciate police working to keep the Duke campus safe.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.