Rape allegation, Duke lacrosse players and "Profiles in Courage"

At News & Observer news columnist Ruth Sheehan’s blog a reader made a comment that began:

The book "Profiles in Courage" doesn't include a chapter about men refusing to speak out about behavior that is unfit for a university student, an NCAA athlete, and a honorable person in general.

The person is right. There’s no such chapter in then Senator John F. Kennedy’s book, a tribute to U. S. Senators who’d shown extraordinary political courage by facing public wrath in order to uphold vital principles.

But there is in Kennedy's book Chapter 9, which begins:

The late Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio was never President of the United States. Therein lies his personal tragedy. And therein lies his national greatness.

For the Presidency was a goal that Bob Taft pursued throughout his career in the Senate, an ambition that this son of a former President always dreamed of realizing.

As the leading exponent of the Republican philosophy for more than a decade, "Mr. Republican" was bitterly disappointed by his failure on three different occasions even to receive the nomination.

But Robert A. Taft was also a man who stuck fast to the basic principles in which he believed--and when fundamental principles were at issue, not even the lure of the White House, or the possibilities of injuring his candidacy, could deter him from speaking out.

He was an able politician, but on more than one occasion chose to speak out in defense of a position no politician with like ambitions would have endorsed.

Kennedy went on to tell readers Taft was a warm, friendly man whose word was his bond. He cited many instances of Taft’s political courage before coming to the one he said:

“did not change history (but) as a piece of sheer candor in a period when candor was out of favor, as a bold plea for justice in a time of intolerance and hostility,(is) worth remembering here.”

The future President was talking about October 1946, when, with congressional elections just weeks away and hoping to win his party’s 1948 presidential nomination, Taft took the hugely unpopular step of speaking out against the Nuremberg war crimes trials of Nazi leaders and the impending trials of Japanese leaders.

To help his readers understand why Taft did that, Kennedy first quoted a Supreme Court justice, and then explained what the Constitution meant to Taft:

"No matter how many books are written or briefs filed," Supreme Court justice William 0. Douglas has recently written, "no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al. deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."…

The Constitution of the United States was the gospel which guided the policy decisions of the Senator from Ohio. It was his source, his weapon and his salvation. And when the Constitution commanded no "ex post facto laws," Bob Taft accepted this precept as permanently wise and universally applicable.

The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice.

Taft favored exiling the Axis war leaders as was done with Napoleon.

Kennedy reminded his readers that in 1942 Taft was the only Senator to speak out against the interment Japanese citizens and Americans of Japanese descent. He insisted they were entitled to presumption of innocence and due process.

There are many people here in Durham who will tell you they believe in presumption of innocence and due process, but they also want to know why Duke lacrosse players aren’t “sitting in jail right now.”

What’s more, they say by exercising their right to remain silent, the players are “telling us they’re guilty or know who are.”

A attorney friend calls such people “occasional constitutionalists.”

Senator Taft was never one of those. Neither was President Kennedy. Remember all those times when anger and violence flared during the civil rights struggles?

President Kennedy told us the Constitution was meant to guard us all and that could best happen if we let the law take its course.

Profiles in Courage is available in many book stores, most libraries and online.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 7, 2006

Readers’ Note: Sorry to be so late with this. John

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It is 1896, the fifty-ninth year of Victoria’s reign. Twenty-one year old Lieutenant Churchill is serving with his regiment in Bangalore, India. His intellectual curiosity, mostly dormant during his student days, has suddenly become active and intense. He’s anxious to learn all he can about the people and ideas that form our Western heritage.

In My Early Life, an autobiography of his first twenty-seven years which Churchill wrote when in his fifties, he looks back to that time in Bangalore; and tells us about something the young lieutenant discovered as he opened his mind to inquiry and reflection:

Then someone had used the phrase “the Socratic method.”

What was that?

It was apparently a way of giving your friend his head in an argument and progging him into a pit by cunning questions.

Who was Socrates, anyhow?

A very argumentative Greek who had a nagging wife and was finally compelled to commit suicide because he was a nuisance!

Still, he was beyond doubt a considerable person. He counted for a lot in the minds of learned people.

I wanted “the Socrates story.” Why had his fame lasted through all the ages? What were the stresses which had led a government to put him to death merely because of the things he said?

Dire stresses they must have been: the life of the Athenian Executive or the life of this talkative professor! Such antagonisms do not spring from petty issues.

Evidently Socrates had called something into being long ago which was very explosive. Intellectual dynamite! A moral bomb!

But there was nothing about it in The Queen’s Regulations.

In February 1901 Churchill for the first time took his seat in the House of Commons. Except for a few years when he was voted out, he remained a member for the rest of his life. He called himself “a child of the House of Commons.”

In Commons, after a bill is introduced, members rise to ask and debate questions. We recognize such proceedings as the method of “this talkative professor” the young lieutenant met in Bangalore.
____________________________________________
Winston Churchill, My Early Life. (pgs. 107-111)

NBC = Now Beneath Contempt

The American Thinker's Thomas Lifson says:

Michelle Malkin has done an enormous public service through exposing the NBC Dateline unsuccessful attempt to gin-up and film harassment of “Muslim-looking” men at NASCAR races.

It is a rare double-stereotyping exercise, revealing the contempt of newsroom elites for middle America and their racialist view of a multi-racial religion.

Michelle’s Fox News segment with Tony Snow is well worth watching via the link in her item, if you haven’t seen it.

Lifson's right on all counts.

Michelle’s now inviting suggestions to complete this post title: NBC stands for ...

A few she’s received –

Narrow-minded, Bigoted, and Condescending. - Jim Treacher

National Broadcasting Caliphate. - Craig H.

No Brain Capacity. - R. Carty

I'm submitting in two categories:

Serious - Now Beneath Contempt

Fun - Now Brian's Colorist

Why don't you submit an entry. You can link here.

Keep at them, Michelle.

Another David Boyd "nails it" post

I've said it before: David Boyd has a knack for nailing it with just a few words.

Here's another example. I've lifted the whole post, including the title. (David's said it's OK to do that as long as I don't do it too often.)

Now David's post:
_____________________________________


It ain't a leak if the prez says it ain't

Podhoretz:

And this "leak" wasn't a leak in any case. A "leak" is the unauthorized release of government information. The leak of classified information is a crime. But according to Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to the vice president who gave the information from the NIE to a reporter, he only released it because he was authorized to do so by the president himself.

The problem with this line of defense is the covertness desired by the White House in getting the info out. If everything was above board, how about a press release.
__________________________________________________

See what I mean?

How long will I keep saying, "David Boyd can really nail it?"

Until he stops.

Central's Chancellor provides wise leadership

The complicated and dangerous situation that’s followed charges by an exotic dancer that she was raped at party at a house rented by 3 Duke University lacrosse players was made more worse following the release of an horrific email sent the night of the alleged attack.

The emailer, who a defence attorney said is a Duke lacrosse player, wrote of killing and mutilating exotic dancers.

The woman who’s made the rape charge is black and a student at North Carolina Central University, an historically black university. She says her attackers were all white.

Following release of the email, the Chancellor of NCCU, James H. Ammons, released a statement addressed to the Central student body. It’s an outstanding example of wise leadership in very difficult circumstances.

I’m publishing it here as it appeared in the Durham Herald Sun. Some of you are coming to this blog from other parts of the country to follow the Duke lacrosse rape story. I want you to know about Chancellor Ammons' statement.

Others of you are in Durham and trying to do your bit to keep things as sensible as possible. You may want to “copy and paste” Ammons’ statement and send it on.

Ammons' statement says things we should keep in the mind.

When I finish this email, I plan to call Ammons’ office and leave a “Hats off and thank you” message.

His number is 919 530 6104.

You can email him at: jammons1@wpo.nccu.edu
___________________________________________

The following statement by N.C. Central University Chancellor James Ammons was released Wednesday:

"The Duke University Lacrosse team player's e-mail released today by the media is very disturbing.

It is important that our students and supporters remain calm in light of this information being released. We do not want anyone from the NCCU family to seek retribution or take matters into their own hands. We have to exercise a great level of civility as we await the outcome of this investigation.

I am encouraging our students to continue to show support for the alleged victim and to continue to plan events that better educate individuals about sexual violence and racism.

I'm proud of our students for organizing forums and events where constructive discussions have taken place. I am appealing to our students, faculty and staff once again to let the legal process resolve this matter, because I believe that ultimately, we all are seeking the same goal; we want justice to be served."

URL for Ammons' statement: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-721301.html

Teachers' unions should get out of the way

You can still sometimes find sensible opinion pieces in the New York Times. For example, education policy expert Andrew Rotherham's op-ed in today's paper begins:

A Wisconsin court rejected a high-profile lawsuit by the state's largest teachers' union last month seeking to close a public charter school that offers all its courses online on the ground that it violated state law by depending on parents rather than on certified teachers to educate children.

The case is part of a national trend that goes well beyond virtual schooling: teachers' unions are turning to the courts to fight virtually any deviation from uniformity in public schools.

Unfortunately, this stance not only hinders efforts to provide more customized schooling for needy students, it is also relegating teachers to the sidelines of the national debate about expanding choice in public education. …

Rotherham describes circumstances in which virtual schools, only a tiny fraction of the charter school movement, can be especially important for certain students:

For example, a student in a rural community with few schooling options who finds the curriculum in her school too limiting might be better served through an online program that allows her to learn at her own pace.

So, too, might a ninth grader who finds unbearable the jock-and-popularity culture that still largely prevails in our high schools.

And some parents may want to be more involved in their child's education than is possible in traditional public schools but don't have the time or resources to do fully independent home schooling.

So why not some school choice? We’re allowed choice in our medical treatments. Why not some parental choice, and as appropriate, some student choice?

If medicine worked the way public education works, I could wake up some morning, go to the doctor and be told: “Sorry, you have no say in the matter. The medical board’s already decided to remove your prostate.

You’ll be bused to a hospital across town. Your doctor’s been assigned. I hear she’s new and very eager to meet her patients and start operating. She’s got great training plus some ideas of her own she wants to try out.

You seem worried. Are you thinking about last year’s hospital achievement results?

Don’t pay attention to them. They don’t measure the really important things like patient socialization in pre-op and stuff like that. They only measure recovery and survival rates. That’s no way to judge a hospital.

Charter hospitals? No we don’t allow anything like that.

Take a look at Rotherham’s op-ed which ends with this warning to the teachers’ unions

An industry cannot survive by rushing to court every time a new idea threatens even a small slice of its market share. Instead, maintaining, and even broadening, support for public schools means embracing more diversity in how we provide public education and who provides it

Amen.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 6, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Some people have a sense of destiny. They’re certain they were put on earth for a particular purpose.

From his letters and the recollections of friends and family, we know that even as a youth Patton believed he was destined to command great Armies.

De Gaulle confirms in his war memoirs that the lodestar of his life was his belief in a mystical union between France and himself; and that a time would come when she would be, as he put it, “dishonored” and he would be called to rescue and restore her.

Churchill too had a sense of destiny. Martin Gilbert tells us something of that in Continue to Pester, Nag and Bite: Churchill’s War Leadership:

At the centre of Churchill’s mental energies as war leader was his belief in himself – in his abilities and in his destiny. While at school, he had gathered a group of boys around him and explained his confidence that one day, far in the future, when London was under attack from an invader, he would be in command of the capital’s defenses. (p. 36)

And we have Churchill's own words describing what he felt the night of May 10, 1940 after the King asked him to form a government and serve as his Prime Minister:

I felt I was walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.

Those words are so familiar, they need no citation. Many of us never read them without being moved.

A great country and a grand old flag

Michelle Malkin has a post reminding us to fly the Red, White and Blue. Her post's filled with comments affirming America. It includes touching and inspiring photos.

If you're like most people who visit here, and you go to Michelle's post, I think you'll find yourself saying, "John's slipping. In the old days he would have told us it was a "Don't Miss."

I hope parents and children look at the post together and talk about it.

I hope Grandparents call "the kids."

And I hope we all say, "I've got 10 minutes. I can email a link to three people. Here's goes."

You'll be firing three "rounds" in the War for Civilization, which can't be won without a strong and free America.

Fly the flag.

That will upset those who only want to fly a Red or a White flag?

All the more reason to fly the "grand old flag."

Duke Provost responds to professor’s prejudicial letter

In the midst of the charged, complicated and very dangerous situation engulfing Duke University and Durham, a Duke English Professor, Houston A. Baker, Jr., stepped forward into the media spotlight and released an open letter to the Duke administration.

The letter has gotten Baker much attention from media anxious to hammer the lacrosse team and the university, and to play up “white privilege,” “ male jock,” “ poor black” and other stereotypes that resonate with many, and perhaps especially strongly with the academic and media left.

But the media have not given much attention to Duke Provost Peter Lange’s response to Baker.

That’s unfortunate. Lange’s letter is noteworthy both because of the position he holds (at Duke the Provost is the chief academic officer) and because of its directness, brevity, and affirmation of the standards of decency and justice most Americans cherish.

I want to give you a few examples of what’s in Baker’s letter; make a few brief comments concerning it; and then move on to Lange’s letter.

Baker castigates the university for its “ timorous piety and sentimental legalism.”

He declares: “ Young, white, violent, drunken men among us - implicitly boasted by our athletic directors and administrators - have injured lives.”

He thunders: “There is scarcely any shame more egregious than one that wraps itself in the pious sentimentalism of liberal rhetoric as though such a wrap really constituted moral and ethical action.”

I think by “ liberal rhetoric” and “pious sentimentalism” Baker has in mind those old ideas about presumption of innocence and so forth. You know, the ideas pased on to us by those dead white males we sometimes call The Founders.

Professor Baker makes sure to tell his letter readers: “There is no rush to judgment here about the crime.”

You knew the part about “no rush to judgment” was in there somewhere, didn’t you?

But I’ll bet we’re all at least a little surprised that Baker gave himself away by leaving that phrase at the end of the sentence.

If he had just said, “There is no rush to judgment here,” left it at that and moved on, things would be fine right now.

Baker’s supporters, who assure us he and they are fair-minded and would never descend to prejudgments, would be using the sentence to help them defend Baker from the many on campus, including faculty colleagues, who say his letter is an embarrassment to him and the university.


Let’s leave Baker and those like him and go on to Provost Lange’s letter which I’m publishing in full.
________________________________________________________
Monday, April 3, 2006

Houston,

I have delayed responding to your letter until now to provide me the time for a measured response. That time has now transpired.

I cannot tell you how disappointed, saddened and appalled I was to receive this letter from you. A form of prejudice - one felt so often by minorities whether they be African American, Jewish or other - is the act of prejudgment: to presume that one knows something "must" have been done by or done to someone because of his or her race, religion or other characteristic. In the United States our sad racial history is laced with such incidents, only fully brought to light in the recent past and undoubtedly there are uncounted numbers of such incidents not yet, or ever to be, known.

We do not know much about the worst of what may have happened in the incident that has inflamed our community; this is acknowledged even by you. If these things did occur, they are of the most heinous nature and will deserve to be punished to the fullest that the law and our own judicial procedures allow.

It is also the case that the leadership of the University in whom you claim to have no confidence, has acknowledged the seriousness of the things that are known and is seeking through many venues, conversations and efforts to take measure of the deeper issues that are revealed by those known events and what they say about the values in our community. Many urge on us faster action, greater efforts, intensified passion. We are hearing these voices, because we recognize that there is a hunger in our community for fuller understanding and for action. We are responding by multiplying our conversations, accelerating our search for the right actions to be implemented now and into the future, speaking out more clearly.

That our pace will still disappoint some is undoubted, but we will not rush to judgment nor will we take precipitous actions which, symbolically satisfying as they may be, assuage passions but do little to remedy the deeper problems. These problems will certainly be easier, but not easy, to understand than they will be to repair.

The latter will take less rhetoric and more hard work, less quick judgment and more reasoned intervention, less playing to the crowd, than entering the hearts and lives of those whose education we are charged to promote and who we must treat as an integral part of the community we wish to restore and heal.

Sadly, letters like yours do little to advance our common cause.

Since you shared your letter more broadly, I feel compelled to do likewise. My response speaks for itself and I have no intention of elaborating on it further.

Peter

Peter Lange
Provost Duke University
______________________________________________

What a wonderful letter. I hope you share it with friends. You can find a link to it here. Immediately following Lange’s letter is a copy of Baker’s letter. So you get two for one.

And isn't it sad that media who tell us they want to present "both sides" give so much attention to Baker's letter and so little to Lange's.

Because so many in the media have been tilting one way regarding various aspects of what was already a complex and tragic situation, that situation has been made much worse.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 5, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On June 26, 1897, a beautiful English summer day, a twenty-one year old Army subaltern, Winston Churchill, made his first public speech in Bath.

The speech took place in a tent set up amidst a holiday fair that was sponsored by a conservative group, The Primrose League, which Churchill’s father, Lord Randolph, had helped found.

We’re told the speech was well received; and perhaps some day we can talk about what Churchill said.

But right now, let’s give Churchill a chance to tell us something about the setting and introduction he received.

Churchill was in his fifties when he recalled the events with gently mocking humor and a wink to us, who he knew understood that by age twenty-one, he was already familiar with the fluff and foam of politics and eager to swim in its waters:

(When) a bell began to ring, we repaired to our tent and mounted the platform (and) as soon as about a hundred persons had rather reluctantly (gathered) the Chairman rose and in a brief speech introduced me to the audience.

At Sandhurst and in the Army compliments are few and far between, and flattery of subalterns does not exist.

If you won the Victoria Cross or the Grand National Steeplechase or the Army Heavyweight Boxing Championship, you would only expect to receive from your friends warnings against having your head turned by your good luck

In politics it was apparently quite different. Here the butter was laid on with a trowel. …

As (regards) my adventures in Cuba, on the Indian frontier and up the Nile, I could only pray the regiment would never hear of what the Chairman said. When he descanted upon my “bravery with the sword and brilliancy with the pen” I feared that the audience would cry out “Oh, rats!” or something similar.

I was astonished and relieved to find that they lapped it all up as if it were gospel.

I bet we’re all smiling.

BTW - Descanted is new to me. My online dictionary says: 1) An ornamental melody or counterpoint sung or played above a theme. 2) A discussion or discourse on a theme.
___________________________________________________________________
Background from Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. (pgs. 71-2,77)
Churchill's "recollection" is found on pg. 203 of My Early Life.

Duke lacrosse Mom's letter, my comment now restored but McClatchy N&O editor's charges remain

I'm very happy to tell you the letter the Duke lacrosse Mom wrote to the McClatchy Company's Raleigh News & Observer's news columnist Ruth Sheehan has now been reposted at Sheehan's blog. You can find it here.

The letter is in slightly revised form, which Sheehan says is at the Mom's request.

My comment and those of others which Sheehan took down have now been restored. But they are not at the same post as the Mom's letter. You can find the comments hereat Sheehan's blog. She provides an explanation of how she inadvertently removed the comments.

I think getting the comments back to where the Mom's letter is will not be hard. It's very likely some technical glitch explains why they're not there now.

I've had a lot of correspondence with Sheehan last evening and this morning. She's new to blogging, and says that explains most of the problems that have come up.

Anyone can understand a new blogger having problems. Lord knows I have some, and I'm not new to blogging.

While the correspondence between us was a touch "rocky" at the start, it soon moved to a "let's find solutions" mode which helps explain the positive outcomes I'm sharing with you.

I'll say more about Sheehan's columns and blog posts tonight.

Right now I'll just say that in response to her work to correct her removal of comments, I sent her an email a while ago in which I said: "beau geste."

Two important matters remain and need attention.

First, I don’t doubt Sheehan when she says the Mom wished to revise slightly her letter. Sheehan explains why at her blog.

Therefore, tonight I'll go back to my earlier posts in which I published the Mom's letter as originally posted by Sheehan; and revise the letter to conform to how it now appears at Sheehan’s blog. I’ll place an “Update" message at the posts alerting readers to what I did and why.

In the circumstances, I think deleting the first form and replacing it with the second is justified by blog standards. It's also the least consideration due the Mom.

I'm confident most of you will understand and support what I’m doing.

The second matter that needs attention has to do with comments The N&O's executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, made at her blog regarding my efforts to find out yesterday afternoon what had happened to the Mom's letter as well as mine and other readers comments.

I’ll say more about all of that tonight or tomorrow in a separate post.

Those of you who can’t wait to find out what’s going on can go to Melanie’s blog post, "Our coverage was fair", and scroll down the comment thread.

You'll notice there a number of people named John making comments. They're not me. I’m always the one whose comment head includes www.johnincarolina.com.

I’ll be back tonight but it may be late. Thank you for staying with me on this story.

I’m going to report a lot tonight and again tomorrow, including a response to a Duke prof who is demanding the lacrosse team be shut down.

I'll also post on what so far seems to me to be the most comprehansive of the responsible blogs reporting and commenting on Duke, Durham, lacrosse, rape charge, and related lousy journalism.

Finally, I plan to post a narrative in the next few days concerning an episode that occurred more than a century ago that has some remarkable parallels to the current situation.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 4, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In historian John Keegan’s biography, Winston Churchill, Keegan quotes a passage from Churchill’s autobiography of his first 27 years, My Early Life.

Churchill tells us what happened when he got to the Latin portion of the Harrow entrance exam :

I wrote my name at the top of the page. I wrote down the number of the question, “1.” After much reflection I put a bracket around it, thus, “(1).”

But thereafter I could not think of anything connected with it that was either relevant or true.

Incidentally there arrived from nowhere in particular a blot and several smudges. I gazed for two whole hours at this sad spectacle; and then merciful ushers collected up my piece of foolscap and carried it up to the Headmaster’s table. (pgs. 25-26 in Keegan)

Churchill never learned much Latin at Harrow, into to which he was admitted most likely because he was Lord Randolph Churchill’s son. But he said long afterwards that he did learn there the structure and uses of the English sentence “which is a good thing indeed.” And as later used by Churchill, it became a powerful weapon in the cause of freedom.

Duke lacrosse Mom's letter disappears from McClatchy blog. Why?

Regular visitors to this blog know that yesterday the mother of one of the Duke lacrosse players spoke out in response to columns The McClatchy Company's Raleigh N&O news columnist Ruth Sheehan attacking the team.

The Mom spoke out at Sheehan's blog. Sheehan made a response.

I posted on all of that here: Duke lacrosse mother speaks out.

Now the Mom's letter and Sheehan's response have disappeared from Sheehan's blog; and I comment I left there yesterday has been moved.

What are The McClatchy Company and The N&O doing? Any suggestions?

I left the following comments at Sheehan's blog and at N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill's blog.


Comment at Sheehan's blog:

(Sorry for punctuation errors. -- JinC)

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com
04/04/06 at 09:53
Dear Ms. Sheehan:

As you know, yesterday a mother of one of the Duke Men's lacrosse players left a heartfelt and informative comment here at your blog. You put it in a post where you made a comment in response to the Mom.

Now the Mom comment and you post are no longer here.

What happened? Where are they?

I made a comment supportive of the Mom comment. It's been moved from where I left it and moved somewhere else here.

Again, what happened?

I've tried calling The N&O but have gotten no help.

Can you explain why you're post, the Mom comment and my comment have disappeared?

You can still find the Mom's comment and mine at a post at my blog.

Thank you.

John
________________________________________________________

Comment at Sill's blog:

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com
04/04/06 at 10:40

Melanie,

The N&O has known for days about the discrepancy between what you reported the alleged victim said and what other news services, including Knight Ridder, reported her father said. But you've told readers nothing about the discrepancy. Why not? It's very important.

Yesterday at Ruth Sheehan's blog one of the Moms of a Duke Men's lacrosse player spoke out in response to Sheehan's columns attacking the team. Sheehan put the Mom's comment in a post in which she responded to the Mom. I made a comment as did others.

Now Sheehan's post and the Mom's comment have disappeared. So have at least two comments I recall seeing that were supportive of the Mom. My comment has been moved to another post.

What happened? Why have Sheehan's post and the Mom's column disappeared? Why did mine "move?"

It reminds me of the situation we had here at your blog back on Aug. 9 and 10 when readers called you out for statements you made about The N&O's failure to report the Air America loan scandal. A whole thread of readers’ comments, almost every one of which called attention to you false statements disappeared. It took a lot of effort by readers and I'm told some advice to you by attorneys before the readers' comments were put back up.

Please explain why Sheehan's post, the Mom's comment, and other comments have disappeared and why my comment was moved.

If you're interested in getting a look at the Mom's comment, I posted it yesterday in full at my blog: www.johnincarolina.com

Post title: Duke lacrosse mother speaks out.

Thank you.

John

Did McClatchy pull Duke lacrosse Mom's letter?

On Monday, Apr. 3, the mother of a Duke University lacrosse player responeded to columns by McClatchy Company's Raleigh N&O news columnist Ruth Sheehan. ("Team's silence is sickening" and "Lacrosse team out of control")

The mother posted a comment (really a letter) at Sheehan's McClatchy sponsored blog.

Sheehan posted what I thought was a self-indulgent responese.It amounted to: "Sorry Mom, but not my fault. Go blame Duke." She tucked the Mom's letter in her post but you could still read it.

I responded to the Mom at Sheehan's post, and posted the Mom's comment and mine here at Jinc. I linked backed to them at Sheehan's post.

I double checked the link to Sheehan's post about 5 PM Eastern. It worked both times. Others went to Sheehan's blog and had no trouble.

Then about 9 PM, friends started calling:the link was dead.

Not only that, when I went to Sheehan's post,it had disappeared along with the Mom's comments. My comment was somewhere else at the blog, attached to another post.

The rest of Sheehan's blog worked fine. Nothing else had disappeared.

I called The N&O twice. They say, "Try calling back tomorrow. We can't help you."

Any ideas or suggestions?

I hope it's a tech problem. Last August when The N&O's exec news editor, Melanie Sill, caused an outrage by telling people things that weren't true, The N&O pulled from her blog readers' comments critizing Sill. It took pressure from lots of people citing First Amendment rights before The N&O put the comments back up.

You can see what that was all about here and here.

I'm adding the Mom's letter to this post along with my comment.

The Mom's letter is a "don't miss" and really needs to be out there.

Please let people know about it.

As bad as The N&O's and other MSM coverage has been let's remember there are also decent journalists out there who want to be fair.

Thanks.

John
_______________________________________________________________


The mother's comment:

I don't know if you have any children, I can't imagine that you do.

I'm sure you are aware of the cruelty and profound harm of discrimination against groups of people.

My son is a Freshman student-athlete on the Duke Lacrosse team. He is a young man honored for his integrity, academics and sportsmanship. He is a high school All American. He has worked hard since he was five years old to excel in a sport that he loves.

It is very difficult to put that much time into a sport and maintain excellent grades and an extensive record of community service. There are many other boys on this team who are similarly honored.

There are Christians who have never had a beer.

There are boys who did not go to the party.

There are boys who left the party early and did not have a beer.

And then there are boys who are "vile," "out of control" boys who have been arrested with an open container of beer. Why don't you delve into the arrest records of all Duke athletes, of all Duke students, or of all Duke employees, for that matter?

Can you imagine how proud my son was when he was recruited to Duke to study and play the sport in which he excels?

I went to Duke and his brother and sister graduated from Duke. Our love and respect for the University has been central to our lives.

You are discriminating against one group of people, not because of fact, but because of innuendo.

You are writing harmful generalizations about boys whom you know nothing about.

When these allegations are proven false, will you write about the woman who has victimized these boys? No, you won't because that is not sensationalist news.

These boys have faces. They are individuals with families. To grossly characterize them is slander and libel. You should be "dumped."
_______________________________________________________________________

My comment:


To the Duke lacrosse Mom:

Thank you for speaking out.

While many people are eager for the type of reporting/prosecution The N&O has been providing, many of us are keeping an open mind. We don't have lynch mob mentalities. We want things to work out in ways that are as fair and just as possible for all.

I can only imagine the intensity of the fears you and others must have now as you listen and read reports from police of threats of physical violence directed at Duke students in general, and members of the men's lacrosse team in particular.

Given those reports a lot of us thought Sheehan would at least tone down her attacks on the team. I talked to some people this morning who are not admirers of hers or The N&O but who were still surprised, even shocked, that in the current circumstances she and The N&O would run today's column.

We’re very sorry they did.

To your question as to whether Sheehan has children: She does, and sometimes writes about incidents impacting their lives.

I think people would agree that where her own children are concerned, Sheehan is very caring and protective.

I plan to post you're letter at my blog. Since it references Sheehan's columns, I will also link to them. That is seen by bloggers as being fair to readers. They can see both sides and make up their own minds.

Yes, that will give Sheehan a wider audience and inevitably some will cheer her on.

But most people I hear from at my blog are intelligent and fair. I have a pretty strong idea about what they'll think of Sheehan's columns and your letter.

Thank you for writing such a powerful and important letter. I admire you for being able to do so in these circumstances.

John

The Churchill Series - Apr. 3, 2006

Folks,

If you read other posts here you know I'm now heavily involved in the Duke, Durham, rape charge and lousy MSM reporting matters.

I just didn't have time to do a post today. I'll get one done tomorrow, Apr. 4.

Also, one of you helped with the question about Churchill, Shaw and the "if there is one" story. I'll be thanking that person and saying more about that very soon.

Thank you for your understanding.

John

Let's hope Cynthia McKinney uses another defense

A question being asked in Washington: What will Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's defense be if the case involving her hitting a U. S. Capital police officer comes to trial?

One blogger offers an answer here.

Let's hope that if it comes to a trial, the case is decided on its merits.

Duke lacrosse mother speaks out

The media attacks on the Duke lacrosse team following an alleged rape at a party hosted by 3 members of team include two news columns by The Raleigh News & Observer’s Ruth Sheehan. ("Team's silence is sickening" and "Lacrosse team out of control")

Among other things Sheehan’s demanded: “Shut down the team.” She wants Duke to “dump” its coach.

Today at Sheehan's new blog a mother of one of the team members responded to her attacks.

I’m publishing the mother’s comment in full. It's a don't miss. I follow it with a response to the mother, which I left at Sheehan's blog.

The mother began:

I don't know if you have any children, I can't imagine that you do.

I'm sure you are aware of the cruelty and profound harm of discrimination against groups of people.

My son is a Freshman student-athlete on the Duke Lacrosse team. He is a young man honored for his integrity, academics and sportsmanship. He is a high school All American. He has worked hard since he was five years old to excel in a sport that he loves.

It is very difficult to put that much time into a sport and maintain excellent grades and an extensive record of community service. There are many other boys on this team who are similarly honored.

There are Christians who have never had a beer.

There are boys who did not go to the party.

There are boys who left the party early and did not have a beer.

And then there are boys who are "vile," "out of control" boys who have been arrested with an open container of beer. Why don't you delve into the arrest records of all Duke athletes, of all Duke students, or of all Duke employees, for that matter?

Can you imagine how proud my son was when he was recruited to Duke to study and play the sport in which he excels?

I went to Duke and his brother and sister graduated from Duke. Our love and respect for the University has been central to our lives.

You are discriminating against one group of people, not because of fact, but because of innuendo.

You are writing harmful generalizations about boys whom you know nothing about.

When these allegations are proven false, will you write about the woman who has victimized these boys? No, you won't because that is not sensationalist news.

These boys have faces. They are individuals with families. To grossly characterize them is slander and libel. You should be "dumped."
_______________________________________________________________________

To the Duke lacrosse Mom:

Thank you for speaking out.

While many people are eager for the type of reporting/prosecution The N&O has been providing, many of us are keeping an open mind. We don't have lynch mob mentalities. We want things to work out in ways that are as fair and just as possible for all.

I can only imagine the intensity of the fears you and others must have now as you listen and read reports from police of threats of physical violence directed at Duke students in general, and members of the men's lacrosse team in particular.

Given those reports a lot of us thought Sheehan would at least tone down her attacks on the team. I talked to some people this morning who are not admirers of hers or The N&O but who were still surprised, even shocked, that in the current circumstances she and The N&O would run today's column.

We’re very sorry they did.

To your question as to whether Sheehan has children: She does, and sometimes writes about incidents impacting their lives.

I think people would agree that where her own children are concerned, Sheehan is very caring and protective.

I plan to post you're letter at my blog. Since it references Sheehan's columns, I will also link to them. That is seen by bloggers as being fair to readers. They can see both sides and make up their own minds.

Yes, that will give Sheehan a wider audience and inevitably some will cheer her on.

But most people I hear from at my blog are intelligent and fair. I have a pretty strong idea about what they'll think of Sheehan's columns and your letter.

Thank you for writing such a powerful and important letter. I admire you for being able to do so in these circumstances.

John

Saudi King: “annihilate Al-Qaeda-linked militants.” MSM goes quiet

An Apr. 1 AFP report (Yahoo News) begins:

Saudi King Abdullah pledged to annihilate Al-Qaeda-linked militants who have plagued the oil-rich kingdom with a wave of terrorist attacks.

"We renew our pledge to annihilate the deviant group of the terrorist killers," he said using a term that refers to Al-Qaeda network in Saudi Arabia.

He also vowed to "combat the ideology of those who accuse others of infidelity," as he addressed the kingdom's Shura (consultative) Council at the beginning of its term.

It was the first time that Abdullah addressed the all-appointed council as a king since the death of his brother King Fahd, although he was the de facto ruler of the oil-rich kingdom since 1995 due to the illness of the late monarch.

"There is no place for extremism in the land of the two (Muslim) holy sites" of Mecca and Medina, he added.

He said that his country's development "cannot be achieved unless there is an atmosphere of security and peace." ...

This is extremely important news. We know Saudi support for the elimination of al-Qaeda is a key element in winning the War on Terrorism.

But the story’s not getting much attention from MSM news orgs that usually pounce on any news they think can make America look bad.

My local, the liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer, ignored the story. That surprised no one here.

The N&O is not called the “Red Rooster” and “Old Reliable” for nothing.
But what about the attention the Red Rooster and the NY Times would have given the story if it could've been turned against the President and America?

One Duke Professor “saw signs”

A Duke Professor has come forward into the media glare surrounding an exotic dancer’s charge she was raped at a party hosted by 3 members of the university’s lacrosse team.

We read in today's Durham Herald-Sun:

History professor Peter Wood said Saturday he complained to athletic department representatives after it seemed to him a group of half a dozen or so men's lacrosse players didn't take one of his classes seriously in the spring semester of 2004.

The course was a survey of Native American history that Wood said has been popular among lacrosse players because of the sport's roots in American Indian culture.

Wood's unhappiness with what happened in the spring 2004 class focused on what he termed the players' "lack of engagement in classroom activities and discussions, and giving priority to unnecessary athletic commitments created by the coaching staff, such as a practice called during class time at 10 a.m. on a Friday."

The professor didn't put his concerns in writing and now wishes he had done more at the time.

"I feel badly that I didn't follow up on it more directly because I think all of us, many of us, realize we saw signs of a developing problem," Wood said.

Imagine that.

Somehow I’d convinced myself that most students at one time or another do the sorts of things professor Wood's talking about.

I even did some of them when I was in school. What about you?

Did you realize before today that what we thought were common, largely innocent student behaviors were really early “signs” of the “developing problem” professor Wood has in mind?

What will happen now? It might be something like this ----

“Our guest this morning is Duke’s Peter Wood. I understand, professor, you saw early signs of what was going to happen; and you we’re one of the first to warn the university. But it took no action. Is that true?”

“Yes, it is, Katie. As I told Brian Williams last night …(click)

It’s sad that a professor would take common student behaviors evidenced two years ago, and package and label them in a way he must have known would get him media attention.

When Dean talks, why listen?

I wish I could tell you this post’s title was my idea but it’s not.

I lifted it from www.IntenseDebate.com where the post begins:

Howard Dean has recently tried to pin President Bush to a strict immigration bill currently in the house. This is an outright lie, but no one seems to care. It is almost expected from Dean. In fact, Bush supports the very same guest worker bill Dean supports.

A lot more follows, and its all worth reading.

You’ll find it here.

Hat Tip: Betsy's Page