Friday, November 19, 2010

Duke… too big to be forced to do the right thing?

After posting the blog which directed viewers to the Investigative Report that detailed the incidents involved in April 14, 2010 discrimination against me by Duke University (which included an audio of part of my conversation with the guard), one of the commenters who goes by the nom de plum of “Anonymous” sarcastically stated “good luck.” It is obvious to commenters possessing intelligence and logic, even those who disagree with me about Mr. Nifong (e.g. Walt-in-Durham and guiowen), that the treatment I received at Duke was outrageous and inappropriate. It is equally apparent to politicians such as those who represent me, that I was discriminated against solely for my thoughts and opinions regarding Mike Nifong. However, because of the emotionally negative media hype against Nifong in the well orchestrated Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, politicians are not willing to get involved in the fray. Unlike former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who confronted the Duke Lacrosse case head-on despite risks to his election to another term as D.A., politicians, it seems, lack the courage to wade into the morass that was created on the Duke campus on April 14th… a pre-meditated, malicious, and unwarranted attack against a person launched solely because of his beliefs about Nifong which were not consistent with those of the university.

Having recently emerged from a serious mid-term election, the politicians can be given some slack for not immediately responding to the request for their input and involvement in this issue of civil rights importance. But it is an issue that will not disappear, in spite of the media’s best efforts to ignore it. Unlike other instances of discrimination which the media has jumped on whole hog, such as that at Cameron Village, the act of discrimination at Duke University involves Duke… the institution in Durham that is too big to be forced to follow rules, regulations, ethics, and principles that others are constrained to abide by. The Cameron Village incident is a case in point. The security officer at the mall requested two lesbians to leave the property because they showed affection in public… an action which the guard deemed to be objectionable, although it was an action which did not violate any rules or regulations. The York Properties company acted swiftly and appropriately to this act of discrimination by one of its employees, utilizing the principles of “restorative justice.” The head of the company met with the two women who were discriminated against, and he accepted responsibility for the discriminatory actions, apologized to the two women, made it clear that such discrimination would not take place again, and told of steps that would be taken to see that such discrimination would never recur.

York Properties acted in a timely and responsible way, and it no doubt was motivated to do so by the intensive and extensive media coverage. Local and national newspapers and television stations covered every single step, beginning with the incident itself, the apology, the meeting with the head of York Properties, the acceptance of the demands made by the women who were offended, and the rally which emphasized the anti-discrimination concessions they had won. CNN was one of the national news stations which heavily covered the event.

When it comes to Duke University, on the other hand, the media cowers in the shadow of the institution’s might. The media dare not publish or air an article that might stoke the anger of Durham’s giant, and to do a story on discrimination by Duke, especially against a pro-Nifong supporter carries only risks and no benefits for them. The media would much rather keep the public ignorant of Duke’s unethical act of discrimination and its ludicrous response. Unlike York Properties, which took the high road to resolving the situation, Duke took the low one, because it felt that it was powerful enough to do so and get away with it. So when I asked Duke University for an official response as to why I was kicked off campus and by whom, I was told that it was because I handed out business cards to its students and employees and asked them to visit my website. As ridiculous as it sounds, it is the best excuse that the university could concoct. To make matters worse, its spokesman, Michael Schoenfeld lied by trying to shift blame from someone in administration and place it on Duke Police. There is no doubt that Duke police have more important things to do that escort people off campus for handing out business cards and monitoring visitors’ conversations to see whether or not they are "soliciting."

So, not only does Duke not accept responsibility for its premeditated and malicious action, but it lays the blame for the incident on me, a guest invited to their campus for an event. Duke does not apologize to me, which I would not expect and would not seek because it has no remorse for its despicable actions towards me. And it makes plain that it will continue to act against me in the future if I hand out business cards on its campus. But as anyone with reason knows, the act of discrimination against me was purely due to the fact that I am an openly known supporter of Mike Nifong.

Duke could learn a lot from York Properties about how to handle issues that arise wherein the conduct of one of its employees is egregious and unacceptable. Duke, like York Properties, and each and every one of us should be held accountable for its actions. Duke is not and should not be treated as privileged and exempt from following the basic rules of civility and decency to which we all are expected to adhere.

14 comments:

Steve Finnell said...

you are invited to follow my blog

Nifong Supporter said...


Steve Finnell said...
"you are invited to follow my blog"


Thanks, I'd like to do that. Could you give me the address at your convenience? Look forward to following it.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney? said...

Sydney, did you throw the race card like a ninja flicks a shoryuken?

Anonymous said...

No. 1 Duke beats Marquette 82-77 in CBE semifinals

Next up for Duke is the No.4 ranked Kansas State Wildcats (who beat Gonzaga 81-64).

Anonymous said...

FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMENT THREAD:

"Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
'You've pursued innocent individuals with relentless dogmatism, simply because their race, religion and socio-economic background do not suit your narrow and highly-politicized world view of the kind of people who deserve your consideration. At the same time, you've elevated their corrupt tormentor.

Hardly kind, is it Sid?'

Your statement is hardly accurate. I am fighting for justice for Mike Nifong, not wasting my time trying to go after the Duke Lacrosse defendants who are not 'innocent' just because the Attorney General says they are. When it comes to seeking justice for Mr. Nifong, the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not relevant.

Next, lets delve further into the reluctance of the media and politicians to investigate the Duke discrimination against me solely for openly being a supporter of Mike Nifong."

Since people here are clearly bored with your beef against Duke, let's get back to your defense of Mike Nifong.

You say in one breath that you aren't "going after" the former Lacrosse players and in the very next breath you say they're not "innocent." In reality, you can't defend Nifong unless Nifong had some reason to indict three people for rape, kidnapping and sexual assault. What was his reason, Sid? Hell, he didn't even know whether the three indicted players where THERE when Crystal finished her (2 minute) "dance." Turns out two of them weren't.

So, what evidence did he have? Crystal's word? Her "word" was that an "attacker" ejaculated in her mouth. SBI found no semen in her mouth. DNA security not only found no semen in her mouth, but also found she'd had oral intercourse with least two other guys several days before the attack thereby confirming that science could, IN FACT, identify every penis that had been in her mouth for the several days preceding her SANE exam and none of those penises belonged to any of the three indicted players, or any other Lacrosse player for that matter.

Crystal's "word" was WORTHLESS. Nifong knew she lied about the "circumstances" of her "attack" and proceeded to attempt to prosecute the case anyway.

How do you defend Nifong? He had no forensics linking any player to the "attack." He had a witness he knew was lying. How was this activity anything other than blatant prosecutorial misconduct?

You can't keep dodging the lack of semen in Crystal's mouth forever, Sid. How do you deal with this?

Please don't pull your stale trick about other prosecutors being worse. So what? Every guilty prosecutor should get off scot free if most of them do? Yep, that's a real moral argument.

And don't go back to smearing the players' reputations either. That will just make you look even less honest after you just went on record saying that you're "not wasting my time trying to go after the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Anonymous said...

FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMENT THREAD:

"Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
'You've pursued innocent individuals with relentless dogmatism, simply because their race, religion and socio-economic background do not suit your narrow and highly-politicized world view of the kind of people who deserve your consideration. At the same time, you've elevated their corrupt tormentor.

Hardly kind, is it Sid?'

Your statement is hardly accurate. I am fighting for justice for Mike Nifong, not wasting my time trying to go after the Duke Lacrosse defendants who are not 'innocent' just because the Attorney General says they are. When it comes to seeking justice for Mr. Nifong, the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not relevant.

Next, lets delve further into the reluctance of the media and politicians to investigate the Duke discrimination against me solely for openly being a supporter of Mike Nifong."

Since people here are clearly bored with your beef against Duke, let's get back to your defense of Mike Nifong.

You say in one breath that you aren't "going after" the former Lacrosse players and in the very next breath you say they're not "innocent." In reality, you can't defend Nifong unless Nifong had some reason to indict three people for rape, kidnapping and sexual assault. What was his reason, Sid? Hell, he didn't even know whether the three indicted players where THERE when Crystal finished her (2 minute) "dance." Turns out two of them weren't.

So, what evidence did he have? Crystal's word? Her "word" was that an "attacker" ejaculated in her mouth. SBI found no semen in her mouth. DNA security not only found no semen in her mouth, but also found she'd had oral intercourse with least two other guys several days before the attack thereby confirming that science could, IN FACT, identify every penis that had been in her mouth for the several days preceding her SANE exam and none of those penises belonged to any of the three indicted players, or any other Lacrosse player for that matter.

Crystal's "word" was WORTHLESS. Nifong knew she lied about the "circumstances" of her "attack" and proceeded to attempt to prosecute the case anyway.

How do you defend Nifong? He had no forensics linking any player to the "attack." He had a witness he knew was lying. How was this activity anything other than blatant prosecutorial misconduct?

You can't keep dodging the lack of semen in Crystal's mouth forever, Sid. How do you deal with this?

Please don't pull your stale trick about other prosecutors being worse. So what? Every guilty prosecutor should get off scot free if most of them do? Yep, that's a real moral argument.

And don't go back to smearing the players' reputations either. That will just make you look even less honest after you just went on record saying that you're "not wasting my time trying to go after the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Anonymous said...

FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMENT THREAD:

"Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
'You've pursued innocent individuals with relentless dogmatism, simply because their race, religion and socio-economic background do not suit your narrow and highly-politicized world view of the kind of people who deserve your consideration. At the same time, you've elevated their corrupt tormentor.

Hardly kind, is it Sid?'

Your statement is hardly accurate. I am fighting for justice for Mike Nifong, not wasting my time trying to go after the Duke Lacrosse defendants who are not 'innocent' just because the Attorney General says they are. When it comes to seeking justice for Mr. Nifong, the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not relevant.

Next, lets delve further into the reluctance of the media and politicians to investigate the Duke discrimination against me solely for openly being a supporter of Mike Nifong."

Since people here are clearly bored with your beef against Duke, let's get back to your defense of Mike Nifong.

see next....

Anonymous said...

You say in one breath that you aren't "going after" the former Lacrosse players and in the very next breath you say they're not "innocent." In reality, you can't defend Nifong unless Nifong had some reason to indict three people for rape, kidnapping and sexual assault. What was his reason, Sid? Hell, he didn't even know whether the three indicted players where THERE when Crystal finished her (2 minute) "dance." Turns out two of them weren't.

So, what evidence did he have? Crystal's word? Her "word" was that an "attacker" ejaculated in her mouth. SBI found no semen in her mouth. DNA security not only found no semen in her mouth, but also found she'd had oral intercourse with least two other guys several days before the attack thereby confirming that science could, IN FACT, identify every penis that had been in her mouth for the several days preceding her SANE exam and none of those penises belonged to any of the three indicted players, or any other Lacrosse player for that matter.

Crystal's "word" was WORTHLESS. Nifong knew she lied about the "circumstances" of her "attack" and proceeded to attempt to prosecute the case anyway.

How do you defend Nifong? He had no forensics linking any player to the "attack." He had a witness he knew was lying. How was this activity anything other than blatant prosecutorial misconduct?

You can't keep dodging the lack of semen in Crystal's mouth forever, Sid. How do you deal with this?

Please don't pull your stale trick about other prosecutors being worse. So what? Every guilty prosecutor should get off scot free if most of them do? Yep, that's a real moral argument.

And don't go back to smearing the players' reputations either. That will just make you look even less honest after you just went on record saying that you're "not wasting my time trying to go after the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the multiple posts. I was getting error messages from Google.

Anonymous said...

No. 1 Duke beat No.4 ranked Kansas State Wildcats 82-68 for Coach K's 800th win at Duke.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"You say in one breath that you aren't 'going after' the former Lacrosse players and in the very next breath you say they're not 'innocent'..."


The statements I made referenced above are true, and compatible. I am not going after the lacrosse players, and just because Attorney General Roy Cooper stated that they were "innocent" does not make it so. That is a true statement. The only authority A.G. Cooper had was to dismiss charges, which he did. He is not capable of conferring innocence, as the biased media has used to mislead the public.


That said, let's reflect on some criminal justice events over the past year that we can be deeply thankful for during this Thanksgiving holiday.

Anonymous said...

Cooper also had the authority to tell the public the results of his investigation that confirmed, in fact, that Crystal was not raped nor was she assaulted or kidnapped.

Sid, you are factually innocent of the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum. You don't fit the description of the alleged assailants, you weren't present at the time of the alleged attack, no credible witness can tie you to the alleged crime, and there is no forensic evidence linking you to the crime.

The only difference between your innocence and the innocence of the "Duke three" was that Nifong didn't try to indict you on no evidence.

Now, instead of trying to interpret law, which you're not trained or qualified to do, why don't you interpret facts for a moment and tell your audience what evidence you believe Nifong had to bring indictments against three random kids.

Don't start with the grand jury, either. They did not know all the facts you do. And Crystal's word is worthless because forensics proved that she lied about the oral ejaculation that she said occurred during the attack. What else you got, Sid?

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

After reading this post, all I can say is that you must have stopped taking your medication.

Anonymous said...

After reading Sid's story, I'm watching for the new website-- justice4harr.