It's just a lot of unsupported assertations strung together.

This is an opinion piece. It is reasonably provocative in questioning the collective silence of the Duke faculty who were quick to condemn but tardy to retract same.

There is no balance whatsoever in this story. There are accusations, but they fail to mention any opposition viewpoint, or any attempt to investigate one. They fail to mention that the Duke students, as I understand the situation, were drinking heavily and had hired strippers, which does not, in my mind, make them as innocent at D'Souza, a far-Right commentator, seems to be claiming. While I agree that some jumped to conclusions before obtaining proof, there is certainly another side to this story, which is not mentioned at all.

I wonder if parallels between the congress and the gang of 88 are appropriate. The D of J seems to be leading the way to a society guided by paranoia and hysteria rule instead of law. The force feeding goes on.

With the disbarment of Nifong, the focus of attention turns to another group of malperformers in the case, namely the 88 Duke faculty members whom the author refers to as "the mau-mau artists at Duke, influential figures on the faculty, who whipped the campus up into a racial hysteria...." Their actions in this disgraceful episode suggests that they should get their turn in the barrel next.

This is an important story which asks important questions concerning peoples need for simple-minded narratives and the power that these preconceptions can have over their thinking. This makes it all the more unfortunate that the behavior of the gang of 88 is being ignored by the left and demagogued by the right. I recommend this article only because the errors of the 88 should be discussed, but I do so with reservations because the author's tone indicates his own lack of objectivity.