• The New York Times never bothered reporting that the alleged victim was a sex-worker from an escort service. In addition, if there any exculpatory evidence in favor of the rich, white boys, the Times made sure to delay reporting it.. (2)

  We will see if the New York Times prints a big, fat apology to the Duke boys and their parents for their biased, slanted, anti-white, anti-rich reporting.

• Liberal Professors who, like the New York Times, prejudged the Duke boys to further their own anti-white, racist, anti-American agenda. Photo right: Assistant Professor Kim Curtis and an idiot liberal racist, had adopted one of the most extreme anti-lacrosse positions of any Duke professor (3).

  The Irish Trojan's Blog,
  15 Jun 2007,
  Nifong resigns, apologizes

  Meanwhile, so far as I’m aware, there have been no apologies — not even too little, too late ones — from the "Group of 88″ Duke professors who were co-architects, along with Nifong, of this tragic and deplorable rush to judgment, publicly and stridently presuming their own students guilty until proven innocent.

  
  
• Those who stood in silence and said nothing.

  Opinion Online - USA Today,
  13 Apr 2007,
  A rush to judgment on Duke lacrosse men

  "The most astonishing fact, hands down, was and remains the squalid behavior of the community of scholars at Duke itself. For months, nearly the entire faculty fell into one of two camps: those who demanded the verdict first and the trial later, and those whose silence enabled their vigilante colleagues to set the tone...The Duke president, no profile in courage, canceled the lacrosse season and fired the coach. As recently as a few months ago, President Richard Brodhead was still defending the 88 professors who trampled on the presumption of innocence, going so far as to describe some of them as victims, too. A few Duke professors did acquit themselves well or eventually located some semblance of a spine...But for the most part, the faculty either supported the branding of three athletes as racists and rapists, didn't care enough about their plight to speak out, or were cowed into suppressing any call of conscience."

Will Liberal idiots and Black agitators learn their lesson and STFU the next time whites are accused of doing anything to blacks before there is a trial? I don't think any of them will learn a lesson unless we, the public, punish them economically for their behavior. In the case of the New York Times, simple, don't buy anything from them. In the case of the Professors, they should be fired. In the case of Al Sharpton, et al, they should be publicly ridiculed and marginalized. Sadly we cannot horsewhip them, as much as they deserve it.

ENDNOTES

(1):

World Net Daily,
8 Jan 2007,
Revs. Jesse and Al: Shameless charlatans

At first I had my suspicions given the seriousness of the allegations and the setting in which they occurred. However, the moment Revs. Jackson and Sharpton arrived to stake their claim in the media circus I knew the boys were innocent. When Jackson and Sharpton show up, truth dies and rumor and innuendo take over. All so the Revs. get maximum camera time.

The Revs. demanded that someone be charged immediately. As far as the Revs. were concerned a trial wasn't necessary. The boys had to be guilty. Sharpton claimed these ''rich white boys'' attacked a ''black girl'' and if there weren't arrests immediately there would be no peace. The entire black community of Durham had been whipped into a frenzy. Town hall meetings were filled with Durham residents demanding Mike Nifong file charges against the accused.

(2):

Slate,
Trial by Newspaper
The New York Times and the Duke rape case.

The fairness of a trial-by-newspaper, of course, depends on how closely a news organization apes the practices of official courts. Fairness requires it to consider not only the statements and evidence of the accuser, but that of the accused, no matter how heinous the charge. By that measure, the New York Times has failed the two Duke University lacrosse players who were indicted Tuesday of raping a woman during a party in an off-campus house on March 13.

(3):

RightWingNation, More On Duke

The basics of the allegations are as follows: in a spring 2006 class, Curtis taught two members of the lacrosse team, one of whom was graduating senior Kyle Dowd. The course required three papers, each worth 25 percent of the final grade, with the remaining 25 percent of the grade devoted to participation. (That percentage is unusually high, given the subjective nature of grading participation.) For his first paper, Curtis gave Dowd a C+. His second paper was due on April 5, at the height of the media frenzy orchestrated by Nifong. (The Group of 88's statement appeared the next day.) For this paper, Dowd received a C-, even though he had met with Curtis before writing the paper for suggestions on improvement.

By this point, Curtis had adopted one of the most extreme anti-lacrosse positions of any Duke professor. Not only had she signed the Group of 88's statement and attended rallies denouncing the players (background, in this photo), but on March 29, she emailed fellow Durham activists expressing outrage that defense attorneys had (correctly) stated that no DNA match would occur to any lacrosse player.