Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy says that if

bloggers were eligible for Pulitzer Prizes for journalism (they aren’t unless their blogs are hosted on newspaper sites), I would nominate Brooklyn Professor KC Johnson, who blogs at Cliopatria and Durham-in-Wonderland, for his coverage of the Duke case. No self-respecting journalist would think of writing anything long and evaluative on the Duke case without first checking the “blog of record,” Durham-in-Wonderland
[The Duke Case

]

But he notes that there an institution eligible for a Pulitzer, (Vdare.com isn’t eligible either, even when we do something absolutely definitive) and it’s not the New York Times. It’s the Duke University student paper, the Chronicle, run by and written by students who are carrying a full course load. KC Johnson says that

In fact, compare the Chronicle’s coverage to that of the New York Times on this case, but remove the mastheads from the two papers. I suspect that most people would guess that the Times, with its (until recently) simplistic, one-sided articles and commentary was the college newspaper, and the Chronicle’s work was that of the country’s paper of record.Durham-in-Wonderland: Power of the (College) Press

Sala Thai Restaraunt
2300 Wilson Blvd
Arlington, VA 22201
7:00-9:30 PM

(Email me for details.)

Agenda: The Duke Lacrosse non-Rape and its Meaning

By now, almost everyone accepts that the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal was nothing more than a hoax. Looking at media reports, one would think that it was the sole fault of Durham DA Mike Nifong. As disgraceful as Mr. Nifong’s behavior has been, the media, many students and faculty at Duke, civil rights leaders, and politicians were just as hysterical in their rush to judgment.

As the accusations unfolded, the talking heads insisted that we must learn a greater lesson about what this really said about race, class, higher education, and justice in America. The Robert Taft Club and The American Cause will explore these issues, though not in the way that the the NY Times editorial page was thinking.

William Anderson is a professor of economics of at Frostburg State University and a columnist for Lewrockwell.com where he has written over 30 op-eds detailing the abuses by prosecutors and others in the Duke Lacrosse case. Prof. Anderson will discuss the abuses of the case in the larger issues of prosecutorial misconduct in America.

Prof Anderson’s Articles on the Duke Scandal

Richard Spencer is a PhD student in History at Duke where he is the graduate advisor to the Duke Conservative Union and editor of the New Right Review. He has a M.A. from the University of Chicago and a B.A. from the University of Virginia. Mr. Spencer will discuss the campus reaction to the case and put it in the larger context of political correctness in higher education.
The New Right Review

Robert Stacy McCain: is assistant national editor to the Washington Times. He has also written for a variety of publications including the American Conservative, Chronicles, and The New York Press. He is the author of DONKEY CONS: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party. Mr. McCain will examine the media’s treatment of the Duke case in light of Thomas Sowell’s observation (from his book “The Vision Of The Anointed“) about how liberalism designates certain social groups as “targets” and “mascots.”

A Selection of Mr. McCain’s writing

Nicholas Stix lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at Men’s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummer and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored. Mr. Stix has written probably the best account of the entire hoax at VDARE.com, which you can read here. He will be discussing the case in the context of Anarcho-Tyranny.

Thomas Sowell, who wrote Migrations And Cultures, has some generally positive things to say about the benefits of skills-based immigration in his book Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide.

For example, the everywhere in the world except England and Denmark, the local breweries were founded by immigrants from Germany, not only are there German breweries in Australia, Brazil, and Argentina, but the fellows who opened the Tsingtao Brewery in China in 1903 were Germans. The American Busch family who brew Budweiser came from a place called Budweis, in what is now the Czech Republic. (They call it ÄŒeské BudÄ›jovice now, but I say it’s Budweis, and I say the hell with it.) The point is that if you want breweries, it helps if you import good brewers. But as you might guess from reading his syndicated column, Dr. Sowell knows it’s not all good.

It would be misleading, however, to assess the economic impact of immigration solely in terms of its positive contributions. Immigrants have also brought diseases, crime, internal strife, and terrorism. Nor can all immigrants be lumped together. When only two percent of immigrants from Japan to the United States go on welfare, while 46 percent of the immigrants from Laos do, there is no single pattern that applies to all immigrants. There are similar disparities in crime rates and in other both negative and positive factors that immigrants from different countries bring to the United States and to other countries in other parts of the world. Everything depends on which emigrants you are talking about, which countries you are talking about and which periods of history.