Perhaps the clearest picture of the insidious forces of illiberalism that tried their best to deprive these young men of their freedom is obtained by drawing analogies with the McCarthyism of the 50s, as the authors do. It is frighteningly easy the way some people can change from persecutee to persecutor in such a short time. What is just as worrying is that this illiberal bloc that has developed in the States is mirrored all over the western world by similar forces in each country, which have spread like a particularly virulent fungus to wherever democracy has taken root, and which all guarantee the continuation of similar injustices, while the individuals involved continue their backpatting, under the illusion that they are fighting for freedom rather than against it. Well, this book is a wake-up call for you guys - the party's over, or at least winding down. For so long, critics of illiberalism have been branded right wing conservatives, fundamentalists, etc. if they so much as raised a voice in protest. It is important to all reading this review for you to know that by buying and reading this book, and throwing in your weight against these disturbing forces in our society, you are not throwing yourself in with conservative, reactionary, forces, but are in fact, taking a stand against them. This book is a Godsend to all who have suffered from today's McCarthyists, be they in America or around the world, because it gives an insight into the kind of minds that are ruining any hope of a decent society for our descendants to grow up in, and it is to these innocents that every thinking man and woman is morally obliged to ensure that those who have perverted the names of equality and correctness fail to reach the misty, utopian goals they have set for all of us.

So many of the other reviewers have so forcefully and eloquently expressed my feeling about the book, I need hardly add to them. But my "heading" is quite serious: This book is worthy of a Pulitzer and a National Book Award -- non-fiction, investigative reporting, whatever the categories. (I believe the Pulitzers are to be announced in early April.)
Bob

It is quite likely that the infamous Duke rape case chronicled in Taylor and Johnson's book will one day be regarded as the emblematic parable of our time - in much the same way that the McCarthy hearings have become the emblematic episode of the early 1950s Cold War. It is difficult to conceive of an event that could more starkly highlight the societal dysfunctions of our era.

Taylor and Johnson's book amply demonstrates the incompleteness of viewing the Duke rape case simply as a rogue prosecutor running amok, unfairly targeting three boys despite profuse evidence of their innocence, and getting his comeuppance in the end. However unethical his conduct, DA Nifong could not by himself have catapulted these young men to national infamy. That sorry result required the active collaboration of countless accomplices: in the media, on the Duke faculty and administration, and within associations dedicated to the propagation of identity-politics grievance-mongering.

Indeed, the distinguishing aspect of this case is not that a prosecutor attempted to wrongfully charge three boys with rape -- for it seems sadly inevitable that somewhere, sometime across this nation, some such prosecutorial misconduct will recur. What distinguishes the Duke case is the ease with which so many attempted to shoehorn the events into a preconceived narrative of race- and sex-based exploitation (a narrative further spiced with an element of "revenge of the nerds" (faculty and press) against the "jocks" they resented.)

It is daunting enough that so many would jump to completely unsubstantiated conclusions before all the facts were out. The even greater tragedy is that once the facts were known, many people in positions of power and influence simply chose to disregard them insofar as they were inconvenient to the fantasy narrative in which they had invested so much of their professional identity. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the disgraced "Group of 88" Duke faculty, who published an ad that presumed the fact of a sexual assault, contained a series of anonymous, unsubstantiated race-baiting quotes, and which encouraged the noise of the mob over the dispassionate evaluation of the evidence. Sadly, most of the Group of 88 has failed to apologize for their contribution to the hysterical atmosphere that gave momentum to the wrongful prosecution, but has since portrayed themselves as victims rather than transgressors, and misrepresented the plain language and intent of their own published statements. The juvenility of the Group of 88's methods of processing information has been on public display, and it has been an ugly sight to behold.

The stubborn refusal of so many in academia and the press to recognize factual reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence rightly calls into question the states of both competence and ethics in America's universities and in press rooms. As one example, noted sports journalist John Feinstein, we now know, was exactly wrong in his initial written interpretations of events, yet still had the audacity to write an article well after the resolution of the case, decrying the continuing lack of accountability in the Duke athletic department, while himself once again getting the facts wrong, and oblivious to the irony of his own calls for accountability in others. That so many in academia and journalism could sail blithely through this episode without looking themselves in the mirror and acknowledging their own pivotal roles in a gross injustice, sadly, speaks volumes about the state of both professions, and greatly explains growing public cynicism about each. Nifong was prosecuted for his misconduct, but Feinstein, Nancy Grace, and the Group of 88, among others, are still paid handsomely to prattle on as though their credibility is intact.

Taylor and Johnson relate the facts of the case in vivid, gripping detail. I give the book four stars rather than five because at places the text veers unattractively into an overheated blog style. The story is damning enough without this occasionally hamhanded commentary by the authors. But this is a minor sour note in the book; the reader is likely to be so incensed by the facts of the case, of which this is the best available history, that they will be unperturbed by stylistic imperfections.

I did not like the way the book was written, for this reason I did not finish it, Maybe later I will get back to it, But I don't think so
To many small details that were not interesting however I am glad these young men were found innocent and politic correctness got a black eye from this incident.

The authors of this definitive book on the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case (one a Democrat and one an independent) literally blow away the the church of political correctness that rules over most elite American universities, such as Duke. The authors clearly demonstrate the shocking lack of political diversity within the arts and humanities faculty at Duke, and shows how the steadfast refusal of the "Group of 88" to apologize to the Duke lacrosse team for their rush to judgment in light of overwhelming evidence clearly highlights the lack of character present among most of these individuals. The authors also point out how a number of these academics have dubious academic credentials at best, yet the tenure system guarantees these individuals more job security than a Supreme Court justice. Because all the people at Duke were so enamored with the concept of the case (a bunch of rich white guys taking advantage of a poor black woman), any concept of fairness or adherence to the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out of the window.

What is more troubling is that had the "colors been reversed," i.e. black members of the basketball team accused of raping a white stripper, then it is also quite likely the "Group of 88" would have stood by the athletes, and likely have prevented the rush to judgment that occurred with the lacrosse team from ever happening. Perhaps it is no surprise to find that the average tuition over the last 30 years at private colleges has increased at double the rate of inflation, while the quality of education has clearly deteriorated.

If you are a parent with a child approaching college age, I strongly advise you to obtain a copy of the book, "Choosing the Right College, 2008-2009" published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. In it, you will find many examples of the intellectual trash being dumped on students at Duke and many other "elite" universities. The book highlights a number of fine universities that do not worship at the altar of political correctness and actually require students to study a broad spectrum of the greatest works of Western civilization. If the universities of America required the same diversity of their faculty members with respect to their political beliefs that they demand when it comes to race, color, sex, etc., then the students would only benefit. Thanks to the authors for this wonderful book. I am only sad that when all the lacrosse players eventually collect their well-deserved damages from Duke for having "thrown them under the bus," the school administration will likely smile, deny guilt, and pay for it with more massive tuition increases.

This fascinating book lays out the full horror of the grotesque legal assault on members of the Duke University lacrosse team in 2006. Not only do the authors bring to account the out-of-control prosecutor Michael Nifong and several members of the Durham police department, they also hold up to deserved scorn Duke's cowardly president, several senior Duke officials and a strident, hysterical but obviously influential minority of the Duke faculty. As portrayed convincingly by the authors, the wildest faculty members were furious people with thin academic qualifications whose main "achievements" lay in pursuing an unfettered leftist political agenda against numerous politically incorrect "isms." (The authors helpfully include short selections from the web sites or other writings of some. While most of the words those "educators" used in the excerpts are recognizable as being English their thought processes often seem extraterrestrial.) Nor do the authors spare some talking (yapping?) heads of cable TV, including Nancy Grace and Rita Cosby, or the major newspapers like the New York Times that shot first and asked questions later. And of the accuser, the less said the better.

The Salem Witch Trials of 1692-93 came to my mind as I read the book. Although in the Duke case no one was literally hanged or pressed to death, the accused and their teammates were subjected to prolonged vicious treatment in an atmosphere of mass hysteria in which too few people in authority were willing to speak or act with basic sense. There was religious fanaticism at work, though in place of Puritanism, the religion was political correctness. It was heartening to see that in the end, the North Carolina legal authorities gave Nifong the punishment he deserved. Unfortunately, the faculty hangmen and hangwomen seem not to have suffered a bit for their fierce and self-righteous trashing of a central constitutional principle: the presumption of innocence.

The authors researched their subject in admirable depth. My main problem with the book is that it was not well edited; thus it's unnecessarily long, and repetitious in places. Despite these flaws, their book will stand as a monument to how badly awry the justice system - and fashionable American academia - can go in dealing with a case that has inflammatory potential. It can also serve as a cautionary tale of what could and does happen at times to poor people erroneously accused of serious crimes. The authors expand the narrative to review several such examples, including death penalty cases. Fortunately, the real victims in this case -- the lacrosse team members -- were from families who could and did fight back against the gross injustices being done to their sons. In their struggle, they were aided by a dedicated and gifted team of defense lawyers who were the antithesis of the now disgraced prosecutor.

It's all about CYA, is the message here. Three guys were dismissed by Duke Univeristy's leadership because it would hurt the "brand" to do anything else.

Now we all know what kind of values are being transmitted by higher education through examples of cowardice and double talk.

Fascinating if scary book.

An excellent documentary, objectively done,that has much to reveal about the flawed justice system in North Carolina and the unfortunate fact that innocent victims of that reprehensible system can readily be destroyed by the corrupt system and its ruthless "good old boy" lawyer/prosecutor/judge advocates.

Taylor and Johnson's book on the Duke Lacrosse scandal is a tale of two miscarriages of justice. The first involving a rouge DA, more bend on re-election than justice, and an out of control Police Department is first rate. The second, involving the excesses of political correctness on the Duke campus is less successful, as is the attack on sloppy journalism. That is not to say that book lacks a perspective or merit when it attacks political correctness, just that it does not adequately source it assertions nor does it explore all the underlying issues. While I think the book is essentially correct in its broad strokes, its attack on the university, the administration and the media, is so partisan and one sided that it actually made me sympathetic to those attacked and eager to hear their response.

It is clear, in retrospect, that the three indicted members of the Lacrosse team - indeed the entire team and its coach - got a raw deal from the University, the press, the public and of course the Durham DA's office and police department. But life is not always fair, and the stereotyping of the Lacrosse team as rich, privileged white members of an affluence society is not without a factual basis, even if it produced an unfair result in this case. There are also larger lessons to be learned both for society and the individual members of the Lacrosse team which resulted from this stereotyping and the resulting public debate. These unfortunately are not explored in the book's narrative, although some of them are inadequately discussed in a couple of chapters at the book's end.

Certainly, the three indicted players and their families were the major victims of what, Roy Cooper the N.C. Attorney General and ultimate protector of the administration of justice in this case, called a "rouge prosecutor." If I was a member of a player's family I would have been as outraged at their mistreatment and as gratified by their being declared innocent by Mr. Cooper, the disgrace of Michael Nifong and by this book's vindication as the actual players and their family apparently are and should be. The Duke Lacrosse miscarriage of justice may well be the worst miscarriage of justice suffered by white men in the 21st Century, but it is not the worst miscarriage of justice in North Carolina's history. This one had, in the public sphere, a happy ending, albeit one which may be of little consolation to the members of the Duke Lacrosse team and their families.

The two authors bring to us a riveting, true-life account of a legal lynching in the city of Durham, N.C. and Duke University during 2006. We're introduced to the lynch mob who were determined to railroad three innocent white male students into prison for life--all based on a horrendous lie.

We're given names and faces of the mob and they're stunning in their diversity. You have a psychopathic district attorney, Mike Nifong, who early on knew that the charges of gang rape by black stripper, Crystal Mangum, were lies. You have the stripper herself who had filed identical charges just three years before but dropped her accusations. There are the treacherous university administration and faculty, student thugs, corrupt members of the Durham police, judges, the media and even Duke Hospital.

The authors point out that among the reasons so many people tried to imprison the boys is that diversity orientation at most universities--especially at Duke--all brainwash students into believing that white males are the scum of the earth. Feminist scholars demand that students believe that campuses are hot beds of raging caucasian males determined to rape women. This all feeds into the fanatical obsessions of white male treachery, black victimhood and feminist logic run amok.

So it's little surprising when the term--"rich white boys--was used in derogatory fashion throughout 2006 by the media and the enemies of justice.

The book pinpoints the origins of the rape hoax: after examining the so-called victim at Duke Hospital, a feminist nurse, Tara Levicy, declared that the stripper was gang raped. The nurse told the authors she never ever doubts any woman who cries rape. From there, the Durham police department and Mike Nifong took the report and ran with it. Nifong, especially, wanted to impress the black residents of Durham that he was their avenging knight who wasn't about to let a bunch of "hooligans" and "rapists" roam around free.

Duke President Richard Brodhead, his assistant, John Burness and board chairman, Bob Steele, come in for deserved condemnation for their gutless and treacherous handling of the case. They refused to look at any of the exonerating material from the defense attorneys. They never wavered in their support of the demented Nifong. Even after the hoax began to unravel, they still threw all their support behind the despicable district attorney. To show their contempt for the accused, they fired the popular LaCrosse coach, Mike Pressler, and cancelled all games for the rest of the year.

Even worse, a group of 88 faculty members (or the Gang of 88 Bigots) took out a full-page ad encouraging demonstrations against the LaCrosse players, and urged them to "turn up the volume." Many of the faculty members had LaCrosse players in their classes, and taunted them, Were the faculty members punished? Hardly. Many, in fact, were promoted, along with several black activist students who had sent threatening e-mail to Coach Pressler and his family. President Brodhead was just recently praised by his board of trustees for his outstanding handling of the case and his unwavering support for the disgraced Nifong.

When racial arsonists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson joined the protestors, many people were probably reminded of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax of l986. She claimed she was gang raped by a group of white men, including a district attorney. Sharpton engineered the massive media coverage, while he destroyed lives right and left. A grand jury finally said the rape charges were a gigantic hoax. Sharpton, Brawley and Jackson skipped away from that inferno as if nothing happened. The same thing happened in Durham. Crystal Mangum was never charged with any of the tragedy she had helped engineer.

Among the heroes of this horrific case was the feisty, courageous Duke newspaper, The Chronicle. Early on, this publication stood up to the lynch mob, especially the Gang of 88, demanding that they provide proof of their charges. None of the gang or the other villians have ever apologized.

An excellent companion book to read is MEAN JUSTICE by Pulitizer Prize winning Edward Humes. He describes how an out-of-control district attorney, Ed Jagels, railroaded hundreds of innocents into prison during the notorious child abuse/satanic worship movement in Bakersfield, California during the l980s.

Until Proven Innocent can be divided into two parts. First there is the recounting of the legal fiasco known as the Duke Lacrosse case. The authors, and I suspect this is Stuart Taylor's portion, does an excellent job of explaining just how egregrious Prosecutor Nifong and the Durham Police Department were in pressing charges against three defendants who should never have been charged in the first place. Any reasonable DA would have dropped the case once it started to examine the evidence. As the book explains, Nifong ignored the evidence and then engaged in breathtakingly irresponsible conduct. This portion deserves five stars.

The second part of the book I have more ambiguous feelings for. It recounts the behavior of Durham locals, the Duke faculty and administration and the media. The book argues that political correctedness caused these groups to condemn the defendants in order to advance their race-class-gender political agenda. I suspect KC Johnson is primarily responsible for this part. I have no doubt that many members of these groups, especially the Group of 88, were more interested in advancing their political agenda than the guilt or innocent of the defendants. The fact that they did angers me. But when the authors focus on one possible motive and fail to explore other motives, then I get the feeling the authors are guilty of trying to advance their own political agendas, and the Duke case is just a good opportunity for them. For instance, Brodhead may have been motivated not by political correctness or internal pressure of the Group of 88, but fear of lawsuits and further injuries to Duke's reputation. I do know that when employees are accused of crimes, very often their employers will thrown them under a bus if they can to avoid lawsuits or a stain on their business' reputation. Another example is that many of these race-gender groups are motivated by protecting their own rather than some academic notions of political correctedness. In my opinion, the book would have been much better served if the authors tried to keep a more fair and objective stance. Instead, this portion comes off as another salvo in the culture war, and more appropriate for someone's blog site. These authors should know better. It give this portion of the book two and a half stars.

Well, it's a little early to say but there's no question that Until Proven Innocent is one of the best books I've ever read and an early favorite for the best book I've read in 2008 (I realize it was released in 2007 though). I found it superlative, painful, and totally educational.

Many of you know all about the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. For those of you who are not intimately familiar with its specifics I heartily recommend reading this work. Now I have to warn you in advance it was a very depressing read and gave new meaning to the phrase "but for the grace of God go I" because any man perusing these pages has to realize that it could just have easily been him as it was the three innocent youths facing 30 years of dehumanization. The Duke story is painful, yet valuable, because it highlights the evil that PC inspires along with the endemic privilege possessed by women in America.

In this scenario, one woman's word was enough to bring a major university to a crawl and bring terror to the hearts of 46 men and their families.

This particular woman, who was often mistakenly dubbed a "victim," at best was an exotic dancer who dabbled in being an adult escort at worst she was...well, far worse. Regardless of the particulars of her vocational status, the one thing we know for certain is that she was a former mental patient who first shrieked rape only after being threatened with an involuntarily readmittance to the mental hospital. Yes, her psychiatric file was thick and, included in its pages, were the fact that she had made unsubstantiated claims of rape in the past as well.

That the case resulted in the district attorney, Mike Nifong being disbarred, was a wonderful outcome. Yet the full extent to which this evil man attempted to crucify the three defendants may startle you.

Unacknowledged by the mainstream media during the ordeal, or the process as Kafka would say, were her history of bipolar disorder and narcotics abuse, that she was using on the night of the incident, that 90 minutes after the party ended while Ms. Mangum was being questioned by three cops she said nothing at all about being raped, that her version of the rape was bizarre and unreliable.

Originally, she was unable to identify a rapist from the 36 pictures she was shown on March 16th and March 21st. Furthermore, forty-some people at that party including fellow dancer Kim Roberts refuted her version of events. Yet all of this made no impression on the District Attorney who soon found that the case would fulfill all of his political ambitions.

The DNA evidence revealed no trace of the presence of any Duke players but did yield evidence that four other and unidentified men had recently visited her offices. What could put the accuser in a worse light than a 2002 conviction for Mangum picking the pocket of a cabbie, running off with his car and embarking on a high-speed flight from the police. Eventually, after a cop got out of his cruiser to arrest her she hit the accelerator and tried to run him over. The chase ended when she careened into his parked car. For all of those offenses, all that our alleged patriarchy could hit her with was two years of probation, three weekends in jail, and a suspended license.

What can one say about Nifong and, at the very least, two rogue members of the Durham police? I think they deserve the chair. The willful attempt to ruin the lives of another is the most contemptible of acts. Justice Blackstone was correct when he argued, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

From the first pages the anger induced by the retelling of the facts of this incident made it difficult to put down. The hypocrisy of our "justice" system, the toxic decay of academia, the outrageous malignant distortion by the media and the self righteous racism are disgusting and frightening. The courage of these young men, particularly the 3 arbitrarily accused is a heartening and hopeful element of this sad sad event. One can only hope that as a society we learn from this mess and find a way to improve. There appears to be unlimited opportunity and need for improvement in multiple spheres of modern America.

For those of us used to watching Law & Order's DA (Jack McCoy) protect our rights, this book presents the polar opposite, a man driven by demons and willing to use the power of his office to ruin the lives of college students.

Well written enough to keep me from my own work (I'm an author of historical fiction who grew up in New York) for two days, I was especially incensed at the portrayal of the medial, particularly the New York Times, which has become so smug in its new role of pretending to give readers news but instead delivers editorial content from its politically correct writers. It's amazing how far such a once-noble paper has fallen.

The authors are to be congratulated on their work, as once again they show the age old truth: what everybody knows is usually wrong.

Sam Barone

For those of us used to watching Law & Order's DA (Jack McCoy) protect our rights, this book presents the polar opposite, a man driven by demons and willing to use the power of his office to ruin the lives of college students.

Well written enough to keep me from my own work (I'm an author of historical fiction who grew up in New York) for two days, I was especially incensed at the portrayal of the medial, particularly the New York Times, which has become so smug in its new role of pretending to give readers news but instead delivers editorial content from its politically correct writers. It's amazing how far such a once-noble paper has fallen.

The authors are to be congratulated on their work, as once again they show the age old truth: what everybody knows is usually wrong.

Sam Barone

I think the reviewer "Meade" brings up an excellent point about the questionable qualifications used by major universities like Duke when hiring professors. More and more, in the social sciences especially, universities are hiring and subsequently keeping "scholars" who are short on academic achievements and heavy on political activism. Duke is after all the school that published (via the Journal 'Social Text') the now infamous sociological hoax "study" by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at NYU who deliberately produced a work of stereotypical Marxist/postmodern nonsense purely to see if Duke University would publish his conflabulations which of course the university did right on cue.

I personally don't think the level of outrage in the aftermath of the truth finally coming out is nearly as high as it should be. I mean, we're talking about a faculty who - with the help of their barbaric minions of death Sharpton, Jesse, and Hollywood - toyed with the lives of these students to advance their agenda.

These poor kids were sacraficed at the alter of multiculturalism by black terrorists and self-hating Europeans. And sure that's morally repugnant, fanatical, and malicious when you get right down to it, but what Duke should be worried about most as a university at least, is the near childlike level of dishonesty on the part of the faculty. What do the reactions of the faculty who leapt at the opportunity to exploit these kids before they had even been convicted say about the intellectual honesty of the faculty and the integrity of the school?

A university exists specifically to advance human understanding of the world, to foster a productive public discouse, to exalt the position of all humankind. Tragically - and much to the detriment of all these noble pursuits - today's American Universities are often nothing more than quasi think tanks tailored to advance political ideology. The political discourse has greatly suffered because of this - what I would call almost a Stalinist approach of get-them-while-they're-young - and there is just an absolutely STUNNING lack of genuine critical thinking going on in this post-Enlightenment world of ours which is only exaccerbated by the fear inflicted on the general public by people like Al Sharpton who, playing sort of a Himler type role, enforce the multicultural ethos outlined by the Academy by deliberately going targeting anyone who has yet to fall into line.

The tactics employed by Sharpton and his lower level cronies are all the more effective because the sheer randomness of their attacks lets people know that literally ANYONE could be next. Just look at what's going on now, they're no longer attacking Mayors and Senators, they've now moved on to attacking previously anonymous teenagers. If the public spectacle in this case wasn't tailored specifically to strike fear into the white male in order to prevent him from looking at women of color in a certain manner than I don't know what is.

What a supplement the Duke Lacrosse Case has been in my realization of the injustices being perpetrated by academics across this country.

Reading through this book about the Duke rape case, I truly realize why a lot of people say we have a "biased" media in this country. How so many people could've jumped to such quick conclusions when there was plenty of evidence to the contrary is amazing. This book lays all of that out, and does it in a way that doesn't preach or minimize the seriousness of this hugely biased case. I definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes true crime and political reads!

When facts yield to politically correct stereotyping and agitation, our system of justice is threatened. In "Until Proven Innocent," authors Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson, recount the case of the three members of the Duke University lacrosse team indicted for gang rape of a stripper they had hired to dance at a frat party. The Lacrosse players were well-off, male, and white. The stripper was poor, female, and black. Once the stripper, Crystal Mangum, accused the players of rape, a verbal lynch mob quickly formed, presuming the guilt of the players and the honesty of their accuser.

The mob covered the spectrum of the American politically correct left, consisting of left-wing media personalities, like Attorney Wendy Murphy, professional race-baiters, like Jesse Jackson, and a host of academic charlatans, dozens from Duke University itself, and outside agitators like visiting "Girl Culture/Power" professor Elizabeth Chin. Neither overwhelming evidence of the players' innocence nor equally powerful evidence of the stripper's shady past and current lies, gave the mob a moment's hesitation. The case against the Lacrosse players was ultimately dismissed and the rogue prosecutor, Mike Nfong, disbarred and disgraced, but not before the innocent players endured months of hellish doubt. Few of the players' race/gender/class biased antagonists ever apologized or publicly admitted their errors.

The book is factually detailed and reads like a horror story of justice perverted. The authors' journalistic homework make it difficult to fairly disagree with their conclusion that legions of the American left happily abandoned their supposed belief in equality and civil rights, as long as the victims of their venom were white, male and privileged. The authors provide a chilling picture of the enormous power wielded by prosecutors and the damage they can do when they place their egos and their careers ahead of the truth. "Until Proven Innocent" is difficult to put down. My only criticism of the book is that it suffers from some sloppy editing. The authors repeat themselves a number of times and sometimes belabor the obvious, resulting in a book that, at 400 pages, is about 75 pages too long. Nevertheless, Taylor and Johnson have done a service by chronicling for history, the travesty of the Duke Lacrosse rape case.

A superb read. The authors demonstrate the bias and prejudice in the American universities. The professors refuse to respect the views of others and in fact will not listen to the views that are contrary to theirs.

This is such an important story that it is worth the read. The facts and detail are thorough, but the writing is junior high.

Taylor and Johnson have produced the definitive account of the false rape charges at Duke University. They tell the story effectively from several points of view -- the legal process, the history of sports and lacrosse at Duke, the reaction of the faculty and administration, and the history of "political correctness" at American universities. Most noteworthy to me were the authors' careful delineation of the timeline on the night of the alleged rape, proving that it could not possibly have occurred as described, and their telling use of the political timeline for prosecutor Michael Nifong, showing that his political incentives coincided precisely with his overreaching in the prosecution of the case.

However, the book seemed repetitive and overbearing in its constant, almost angry denunciations of the professors who rushed to judgment against the accused students and of Nifong's other supporters. Taylor and Johnson make good points, but the reader can feel as if he was hit by a sledgehammer. It's true that these are easy targets, but at a certain point the reader just gets weary of the authors' rhetoric.

Until Proven Innocent should be required reading for everyone, especially anyone subject to jury service. The most important line might be the one attributed to Colin Finnerty's mom: "I didn't know this could happen in America."

Hopefully this book will increase everyone's awareness of our flawed justice system. As Reade Seligman said, if the system could harm these educated, affluent white males, what is happening to those less fortunate?

Other reviewers have hit the highlights, so just a few comments:

(1) Nifong demonstrates what happens when anyone desperately tries to hold on to a career that's ending prematurely. Facing election as a prostate cancer survivor, Nifong may have felt he needed this job. He somehow got the idea that convicting these young men would give him the edge he needed with the African-American community.

(2) But as the authors suggest, Nifong is part of a system. Why did the police go along with Nifong? Why didn't one detective speak up to say, "This is not what happened?"

The authors show how different parts of the justice system are interconnected, which means checks and balances do not operate. Defense attorneys can't afford to alienate district attorneys, because they may need to make deals in future. Therefore, only defendants who can hire lawyers outside the jurisdiction can get aggressive defenses. In real life, Perry Mason eats lunch with Hamilton Burger.

(3) As a former college professor, I am not surprised at the university's inadequate response. University presidents tend to be selected for their scholarship, not their managerial skill. In any case, at research universities like Duke, they do not manage the faculty. They depend on faculty support to do their job.

Nor am I surprised by the "Gang of 88." The authors note 88 faculty members signed a statement condemning the accused lacrosse players. But they note there were 500 liberal arts faculty and countless more in other departments. So the signers constitute a small fraction of the total faculty.

The authors pound away on excesses of political correctness. But other factors should be considered. First, junior faculty can be pressured to sign petitions because the senior faculty will vote on their retention, tenure and promotion cases.

Second, faculty are no more savvy about justice than anyone else. Like most Americans (including the players and their families, before this happened) they tend to believe in the system. They want to believe the bad guys are really awful and that people who are sitting in prison belong there.

I once talked to a very smart professor who served on a jury. "The police tests showed the defendant had fired a gun in such-and-such way, proving guilt," he said confidently. When I asked if the defense team had presented evidence, he was surprised. "No," he said. "They had the police evidence. Why would they need their own?"

Well, not everyone learned from the OJ trial.

(4) The book gives us a context for the players' decision to hire a stripper. Many readers (like me) are probably saying, "We wouldn't have done this in my day!" But apparently Duke fraternities hire female strippers and sororities commonly hire male strippers.

(5) The young men on the lacrosse team seem smart and polite. In many universities, athletes have to attend class and behave appropriately. I remember getting calls from athletic departments: "Did X go to class? Is he having trouble?" It would be nice if every student could get this kind of nurturing, at least freshman year.

The only flaw: It's so long and detailed, those who most need to read the book may be tempted to stop reading too soon.

Ironically, the 3 young men on the cover emerge as heroes. It will be interesting to see what happens as they move past this experience. They handled themselves with pride and dignity. They have no reason to hide from the media or anyone.

Fabulous read, (despite a few frustrating typos). Sad reality is that if the average parent of a male college student were to read this book (and realize their son's jeopardy), there would be torch-lit processions at campuses across America. (As a Bostonian, I'm just waiting for a similar scandal to happen here). Sad reality? It can happen ANYWHERE, perhaps to your family. I'll bet it will take another "pay-back" scandal or two for people to realize that racism against middle-class white kids can be pretty ugly too.

Until Proven Innocent

An interesting read for any Duke graduate...while I gave it as a gift, the recipient truly enjoyed it.

Stuart Taylor Jr. and K.C. Johnson's "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case" is a fascinating, convincing, and enraging look at the 2006 Duke lacrosse "rape" story. As a former prosecutor and Duke alumnus, I followed this case closely in the national media, but Taylor and Johnson put together a much deeper (and truthful) narrative than anyone else out there.

Taylor and Johnson tell a fascinating and compelling story from the background on the Duke lacrosse team, through the party that led to the bogus rape allegations, to the disbarring of Mike Nifong this past summer (2007) (but not to his one day jail sentence for contempt of court). This book is extremely well-researched and is a page-turner: very hard to put down, even though you know the end of the story. And this travesty of a story should infuriate any thinking reader as Taylor and Johnson trace three parallel stories:

-DA Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Department's investigation. Nifong, embroiled in a political campaign vital to increasing his state pension, flagrantly violated ethical standards by publicly stirring up a media frenzy, personally leading the investigation, continuing to prosecute three men he knew to be innocent, and hiding exculpatory evidence from the defendants. He abused his authority by exploiting race during his campaign and running over innocent men in a selfish quest to hold power instead of doing what any prosecutor should do: find the truth.

-Duke University's administration and faculty. The Duke administration cooperated with the investigators, unjustifiably fired the lacrosse coach and cancelled the season, made public statements critical of the falsely accused players and the entire lacrosse team, and then refused to make any public statements once the travesty was fully revealed. Furthermore, they bent to the wishes of extremists both outside of Duke and on the faculty, while a vocal radical minority on the Duke faculty also attacked the lacrosse players and spoke out against due process or the possibility that the accused could have been innocent.

-The media story. Taylor and Johnson excellently show how the media participated in the rush to judgment about the rape and the Duke lacrosse team and how their plotline of "rich white kids raking advantage of a poor black single mother and college student" blinded most of the public to the real facts. The authors document how some of the media talk shows, such as Nancy Grace, made outrageous statements and featured so-called experts who ignored the facts of the case in their demagoguery. They also show how newspapers, particularly The New York Times and the local Durham Herald Sun had slanted coverage of the story from the beginning and never relented, while other papers, such as the Raleigh News & Observer, did a much better job covering the story once the cracks started to appear.

Finally, Taylor and Johnson show how the underlying political correctness, especially in the academic community, contributed to all three threads in this story. While Johnson is an academic and self-professed Obama supporter, the authors lambaste modern academia's infatuation with race, gender, and class.

My only criticisms of this book are that, at times, the authors are so critical of every facet of the case that they insert snide comments into the text. This undermines their credibility slightly. The facts are so bad that the authors need only recite those. Also, I wish that the authors had footnoted the book because of its contentious quality. [EDIT: Source notes are available online at http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/notes.htm .]

This is a book that everyone should read because it touches on so many important facets of our society. Even though I had followed this story and knew the basic facts, I was still shocked to read the details that the authors compiled - and very angered that such a travesty can happen in 21st century America, right under our very noses.

Stuart Taylor Jr. and K.C. Johnson's "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case" is a fascinating, convincing, and enraging look at the 2006 Duke lacrosse "rape" story. As a former prosecutor and Duke alumnus, I followed this case closely in the national media, but Taylor and Johnson put together a much deeper (and truthful) narrative than anyone else out there.

Taylor and Johnson tell a fascinating and compelling story from the background on the Duke lacrosse team, through the party that led to the bogus rape allegations, to the disbarring of Mike Nifong this past summer (2007) (but not to his one day jail sentence for contempt of court). This book is extremely well-researched and is a page-turner: very hard to put down, even though you know the end of the story. And this travesty of a story should infuriate any thinking reader as Taylor and Johnson trace three parallel stories:

-DA Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Department's investigation. Nifong, embroiled in a political campaign vital to increasing his state pension, flagrantly violated ethical standards by publicly stirring up a media frenzy, personally leading the investigation, continuing to prosecute three men he knew to be innocent, and hiding exculpatory evidence from the defendants. He abused his authority by exploiting race during his campaign and running over innocent men in a selfish quest to hold power instead of doing what any prosecutor should do: find the truth.

-Duke University's administration and faculty. The Duke administration cooperated with the investigators, unjustifiably fired the lacrosse coach and cancelled the season, made public statements critical of the falsely accused players and the entire lacrosse team, and then refused to make any public statements once the travesty was fully revealed. Furthermore, they bent to the wishes of extremists both outside of Duke and on the faculty, while a vocal radical minority on the Duke faculty also attacked the lacrosse players and spoke out against due process or the possibility that the accused could have been innocent.

-The media story. Taylor and Johnson excellently show how the media participated in the rush to judgment about the rape and the Duke lacrosse team and how their plotline of "rich white kids raking advantage of a poor black single mother and college student" blinded most of the public to the real facts. The authors document how some of the media talk shows, such as Nancy Grace, made outrageous statements and featured so-called experts who ignored the facts of the case in their demagoguery. They also show how newspapers, particularly The New York Times and the local Durham Herald Sun had slanted coverage of the story from the beginning and never relented, while other papers, such as the Raleigh News & Observer, did a much better job covering the story once the cracks started to appear.

Finally, Taylor and Johnson show how the underlying political correctness, especially in the academic community, contributed to all three threads in this story. While Johnson is an academic and self-professed Obama supporter, the authors lambaste modern academia's infatuation with race, gender, and class.

My only criticisms of this book are that, at times, the authors are so critical of every facet of the case that they insert snide comments into the text. This undermines their credibility slightly. The facts are so bad that the authors need only recite those. Also, I wish that the authors had footnoted the book because of its contentious quality.

This is a book that everyone should read because it touches on so many important facets of our society. Even though I had followed this story and knew the basic facts, I was still shocked to read the details that the authors compiled - and very angered that such a travesty can happen in 21st century America, right under our very noses.

This book and the story reinforces the expression - "Truth is stranger than fiction."

The book cover prominently displays a positive quote by John Grisham. And yes, this book reads like a Grisham novel. Yet it's a factual summary of this incredible tragedy.

As a Duke graduate 30 years ago, it's sad to read about the school's bureaucracy run amok, destroying lives as it enriches those at the top, and a sad commentary on the faculty of the school who found it so convenient to bury their heads in the sand, even when the truth was finally obvious.

The author does a masterful job of gathering facts into a compelling story!

this is an excellent accounting of what happened to the three Duke students who were viciously accused of raping a black stripper. It is a cautionary tale that every male college student should read and take notice of. Being naive and trusting can land you in jail. A must read for parents of college students as well.

This is a well told, documented, detailed look at the Duke Lacrosse case where 3 Duke students were prosecuted/persecuted because of their race and their background. It's kind of hard to believe this stuff is still going on.

The book begins at the beginning, with the events that lead to this travesty, and it follows it til the end where the 3 students were exonerated. In this time period we get a cool headed, ground level view of a witch hunt in action and it makes for gripping, read it on the bus, read it at dinner, can't put it down reading.

My only knock on it is the last chapter, which was an overview of similarly disgraceful, politically correct, travesties. It wasn't part of the narrative the rest of the book was about, and I read it with much less enthusiasm, despite the fact that I found it well argued and written.

The only two facts written about me in Until Proven Innocent are untrue. I am not aware of any efforts the authors or their fact checkers made to ascertain the veracity of these rumors that were published as fact. Did the authors only employ shoddy research practices when writing about inmyhumbleopinion [p. 270] or is this book replete with rumors stated as fact?

Very interesting. This is a difficult book to rate. I could have gone anywhere from one to five stars on this treatment of the 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case, depending on my chosen perspective. Three stars is just a compromise. Author K.C. Johnson is an academic by trade, but this book is neither academic nor scholarly (not that it makes any pretense to be, with no footnotes, and only random references to sources in the text). I would not go so far as to call it a potboiler, but I would not loudly disagree if others did. K.C. maintained a major blog on the Duke lacrosse case, something I did not know before reading the book. Thus, from his standpoint the story is about both the case itself and the teller and other bloggers. That's what makes it interesting, the telling as much as what's being told. (Do your see a curriculum addition here: Blogger Lit 403?) On the substantive side, the description of the tragic mess and inexcusable, almost complete failure of the North Carolina politico-legal system appears to be reasonably complete and accurate, although because the book does not follow a precise linear time line it's sometimes confusing. Recounted in somewhat less detail is the abysmal performance of Duke's leaders. Where the authors fail is in their attempt to take on the extremely complex issues of today's university community reflected in the code words "academy" and "political correctness," where they rely mainly on O'Reillyesque right wing rhetoric. These issues are far too serious for the lightweight treatment afforded here. The so-called mainsteam media also takes deserved heat, from easy targets like CNN's Nancy Grace (like shooting fish in a barrel) to the hallowed New York Times. But what else is new? In somewhat of a letdown, the authors conclude with several filler chapters on the broader -- beyond Durham and Duke -- issues of prosecutorial abuse and perceived too-liberal leanings of today's colleges and universities, both here treated far to simplistically to contribute anything significant to this important debate. (By way of disclosing my prejudices, you might want to consider that I'm a Duke grad (J.D. 1968) and a practicing member of the North Carolina Bar. Very early on my money was on the "crock" side.)

Very interesting. This is a difficult book to rate. I could have gone anywhere from one to five stars on this treatment of the 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case, depending on my chosen perspective. Three stars is just a compromise. Author K.C. Johnson is an academic by trade, but this book is neither academic nor scholarly (not that it makes any pretense to be, with no footnotes, and only random references to sources in the text). I would not go so far as to call it a potboiler, but I would not loudly disagree if others did. K.C. maintained a major blog on the Duke lacrosse case, something I did not know before reading the book. Thus, from his standpoint the story is about both the case itself and the teller and other bloggers. That's what makes it interesting, the telling as much as what's being told. (See a curriculum addition here: Blogger Lit 403?) On the substantive side, the description of the tragic mess and inexcusable, almost complete failure of the North Carolina politico-legal system appears to be reasonably complete and accurate, although because the book does not follow a precise linear time line it's sometimes confusing. Recounted in somewhat less detail is the abysmal performance of Duke's leaders. Where the authors fail is in their attempt to take on the extremely complex issues of today's university community evidenced in the code words "academy" and "political correctness," where they rely mainly on O'Reillyesque right wing rants. These issues are far too serious for the lightweight treatment afforded here. The so-called mainsteam media also takes deserved heat, from easy targets like CNN's Nancy Grace (like shooting fish in a barrel) to the hallowed New York Times. But what else is new? In somewhat of a letdown, the authors conclude with several filler chapters on the broader -- beyond Durham and Duke -- issues of prosecutorial abuse and perceived too-liberal leanings of today's colleges and universities, both here treated far to simplistically to contribute anything significant to this important debate. (By way of disclosing my prejudices, you might want to consider that I'm a Duke grad (J.D. 1968) and a practicing member of the North Carolina Bar. Very early on my money was on the crock side.)

This is a negative review and I give a preemptive caveat for those who will not like that. Looking at the ratings and the discussion, it seems that there is strong alignment of people who want to vote the book high, because the players were falsely accused. FWIW: I thought the rape accusations were laughable when brought forward and thought it inane that anyone took them seriously.

The book recounts the events around the Duke rape scandal. KC knows the details well from his coverage of the story...and the book is reasonably well-written in terms of paragraph style.

However, it's not a good non-fiction book. It lacks footnotes. Sources are not clearly identified and are anonymous at times (including when contested events/statements are described). In many cases, comparative statements are made but not supported by evidence or numbers (for instance that lax players were academically equivalent to the general population at Duke).

In addition, the thing reads too much like a blog post or an argument. Often statements of "bad guys" (and I think they were bad guys too) are followed by quick retorts in argument. It's as if KC can't allow a different take to stand for a second without rebutting it.

In addition, there are way to many argumentative qualifiers used to try to position facts rather than recite them: "grossly exaggerated" prefacing a quote, an assualt accusation being a "slight blot on the record". The reading public can handle a recitation of the facts without incessant argumentation interspersed. Such argumentation is better done in summary, anyhow.

Really, this book reads too much like a blog post. Not like a good non-fiction book. A little more effort could have led to something that was worthwhile and helpful in convincing those who were undecided or who had not payed attention to the brouhaha. But as is, this thing will mostly play to the choir. And not the smartest parts of the choir. Unfortunately, this appears to be a tendancy of blogs and blog communities.

Amazon has already given this book the nod as among the top 10 of 2007. It fully deserves it.
It is an insightful and balanced review of the Duke Lacrosse case by 2 authors who had a major role in revealing the hoax. It exposes how frightfully easy it is for an accused to be railroaded by unscrupulous prosecutors with their own agenda. It's also a devastating indictment of our elite universities and our mainstream media who let their political agendas override the facts and the truth.
It's frightening how much money and resources it took for the players innocence to be established. I fear for this country if that is what is needed to obtain justice.

Reading this was like watching a car crash in slow motion. The authors rightly skewer the culprits, and exonerate the innocent. However the tone is slightly jarring, indeed almost as hysterical as those they criticize.

At the intersection of race, rape, class, ambition (only greed seems to be missing) this case should become the rallying standard for changes in legal procedure and academic debate. One is almost left thinking 'thank goodness they were well educated white kids' with the motivation now to drive changes. It is therefore unfortunate that this book lacks a level of detached reflection. It may not be surprising that the tone is so one sided, given the vitriol poured on the lacrosse team victims, but that has eliminated the opportunity to discuss the other side. Mike Nifong's motivations and thought process deserve further analysis, while the Group of 88 (more like the Gang of Four) surely are ripe for a degree course study somewhere.

I liked this book. It also contains my favorite typo of all time. Check page second line of the fourth paragraph of page 323.

One other minor question. On page 329 the authors note that "less than one fortieth of one percent of Duke's 6000 students were victims of any type of "sexual misconduct". By my math, that is less than 1.5 students, i.e. one student per year. Is this true, or did they mean one quarter of one percent, 15 students per year. Why not just say that!

I followed the Duke Lacrosse Burning case closely and didn't think there would be much additional to learn from this book. In fact, UPI proved to be a wealth of information that goes well beyond the "facts" that dribbled out over a year and a half. Read the book and you will be amazed -- Duke Lax was a perfect storm, revealing the depths to which a D.A. would go to keep his job, the police who willingly overlooked clear evidence of the hoax, MSM and their if-it-bleeds-it-leads approach to reporting, and worst of all, the Duke faculty from the "anger studies" departments who threw their own students under the bus to advance their culture of aggrievement.

A great read!

After following most of KC Johnson's blog posts (thanks to Instapundit) during this shameful affair, I felt compelled to read the book. It is certainly an easy read; and if the narrative is flawed at all, it is mostly due to the fact that the authors do little to hide their contempt for the pathetic members of the Duke administration and faculty, the vast majority of the "mainstream media", and, of course, Mr. Nifong and his supporting cast.

But you really do have to forgive that weakness as the story unfolds and the perfect storm of race, class, ambition, political correctness and childish ignorance almost sweeps away the lives of these three school kids - who were guilty only of being just that - school kids.

After reading this you may never want to send your kids to an "elite" university, read the New York Times or watch CNN ever again. You should start to wonder about the repressive culture of correctness we have fostered in this country and the unbelievable sense of self-loathing we are teaching our kids in their schools and in the media. One, also, needs to ask about the place that the current civil rights movement holds in this environment; and , finally, maybe someone will take Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to task for their hateful behavior.

Poorly behaved and unethical local prosecutors have always been a problem in this country; and Mike Nifong certainly got what was coming to him. But where, one has to wonder, was the ACLU in the midst of one of the most visible cases of politically motivated misbehavior in recent history? Obviously, these three young white men were not on their radar screen, or worth their effort - regardless of the clear constitutional issues at stake.

This was, quite simply, a lynch mob - nothing more, nothing less - racially and politically motivated; and armed with university degrees and press passes. We need to wake up .......

After following most of KC Johnson's blog posts (thanks to Instapundit) during this shameful affair, I felt compelled to read the book. It is certainly an easy read; and if the narrative is flawed at all, it is mostly due to the fact that the authors do little to hide their contempt for the pathetic members of the Duke administration and faculty, the vast majority of the "mainstream media", and, of course, Mr. Nifong and his supporting cast.
But you really do have to forgive that weakness as the story unfolds and the perfect storm of race, class, ambition, political correctness and childish ignorance almost sweeps away the lives of these three school kids - who were guilty only of being just that - school kids.
After reading this you may never want to send your kids to an "elite" university, read the New York Times or watch CNN ever again. You should start to wonder about the repressive culture of correctness we have fostered in this country and the unbelievable sense of self-loathing we are teaching our kids in their schools and in the media. One, also, needs to ask about the place that the current civil rights movement holds in this environment; and , finally, maybe someone will take Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to task for their hateful behavior.
Poorly behaved and unethical local prosecutors have always been a problem in this country; and Mike Nifong certainly got what was coming to him. But where, one has to wonder, was the ACLU in the midst of one of the most visible cases of politically motivated misbehavior in recent history? Obviously, these three young white men were not on their radar screen, or worth their effort - regardless of the clear constitutional issues at stake.
This was, quite simply, a lynch mob - nothing more, nothing less - racially and politically motivated; and armed with university degrees and press passes. We need to wake up .......

A caustically but well-written and very readable detailed review of the Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case with commentary on our legal system.

Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson have written a brilliant and terrifying analysis of the ordeals of the falsely accused members of the Duke acrosse team. This book demonstrates in excruciating detail the flaws of our criminal justice system and how it can so easily run amok. The authors explain how it was possible for District Attorney Nifong to continue a prosecution that had absolutely no basis in fact from the start. This tour de force shows how a combination of politically correct conformism in the academic community, a herd mentality in both the local community and the nation generally, aided by sloppy and often biased press coverage can create a toxic cocktail of injustice.

This is a better account of the Duke lacrosse case than the book written by Don Yaeger although both are worth reading. The authors did a remarkable job of gaining access to critical decision makers at Duke, the defense lawyers and other men and women that influenced the process. They also have good records of the national and local media and how far off base many members were in the early stages. The authors most certainly do not spare the NY Times, which I have alway assumed was held to the highest standards. Selena Roberts, among others, was wrong but unapologetic. All is all, this was an amazing miscarriage of justice by a prosecutor, a university and the media.

Read this book and try to imagine the outrage if the colors/races were reversed. I have a child at Duke and can only imagine the harm my family would suffer at the hands of self-serving media and prosecutors.

In the decades ahead, this country will finally turn aside the radical political correctness and the racism, by no means all white, that afflict our public and private institutions. When the histories of the early readjustment period are written, certain books will prove significant in the reaction of our society.

The Duke Lacrosse Case will be important, perhaps pivotal. The books written by Don Yaeger and Coach Mike Pressler, Its Not About the Truth, and by Nader Baydoun and Stephanie Good, A Rush to Justice, will be studied. Along with them, I predict that Bill Cosby's and Alvin F. Poussaint's Come on People, On the Path from Victims to Victors will be another.

There is another book about the Duke Lacrosse Case that is by far the most detailed rendering of the events and personalities involved. It is also a powerful exposition of the case's implications for the whole country. To date, Stuart Taylor, Jr.s, and K. C. Johnson's Until Proven Innocent, Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Case is the most stunning, detailed, and comprehensive indictments of political correctness and racism that I have read. This expose of the types of people, groups, and institutions that indulged themselves in this affair are revealed as perhaps never before. They are a danger to the Republic and to our civil liberties. They are active all over the country. This book is, as we say, "a must read."

As with the other two books about the lacrosse fiasco, the authors have substantial backgrounds. Stuart Taylor, Jr., is a columnist for the National Journal, a contributing editor for Newsweek, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and a reporter of legal affairs and the Supreme Court for The New York Times for which it nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize. Dr. K. C. Johnson is a history professor at Brooklyn College and CUNY, his doctorate from Harvard, who followed the lacrosse case very closely with his blog site.

These are issues and books to be reckoned with!