NY Times Article

[oldnavy]

I will openly admit that I refuse to click on the link and read that article for two main reasons. First, I do not want to give them the site hit, and second I already can tell you what they are going to say.

The NYT used to be the paper of record, a LONG time ago. Now it is like most most large media outlets, a mouth piece for spreading the propaganda of the elitist (those who are smarter and know better how to think and therefore run your life than you). Never mind that these people are so far removed from what is really going on in the country at the working/non working man's level that they couldn't make their own cup of coffee if forced to.

My first reaction to the front page article is disgust, the second is, is that rag still in print??

[Grey Devil]

I will openly admit that I refuse to click on the link and read that article for two main reasons. First, I do not want to give them the site hit, and second I already can tell you what they are going to say.

The NYT used to be the paper of record, a LONG time ago. Now it is like most most large media outlets, a mouth piece for spreading the propaganda of the elitist (those who are smarter and know better how to think and therefore run your life than you). Never mind that these people are so far removed from what is really going on in the country at the working/non working man's level that they couldn't make their own cup of coffee if forced to.

My first reaction to the front page article is disgust, the second is, is that rag still in print??

Well, did you read the article or not? Your last line seems to imply that maybe you read it after all...?

I happen to have found the article an interesting commentary on Duke and K-ville and the struggle that a major university faces in trying to balance the often conflicting interests of big-time athletics and world-class academics. If anything, I would criticize it for being too shallow in it's coverage.

Of course, by starting a thread here about the article you also gave the NYT many more hits...jeeesh! Talk about hypocritical.

[cspan37421]

In a game of Duke-Hate Bingo, you don't really need a free space on every board - just mark one "privilege" and that's just about as easy to fill.

SMH - so tired of all the running down of people who bust their butts just to have a shot at getting in the most selective schools. I can envision a cartoon of HS classroom in which a kid gets back their "A" test only to have the other kids accuse him (or her) of being an "elitist."

That said, I don't think it's wise to have the athletic tail wagging the academic dog.

[davekay1971]

I find the article about 25 years too late. It's kind of funny the way the media decides what to pick on and when to pick on it. Is it time to look at K-Ville as a great example of the potentially bad influence of major college sports on education because Duke is jumping from the ACC to another conference for money? Because the quality of education at Duke has deteriorated? Because a study showed that students who tent for the basketball game do more poorly in the same classes than those who don't? Because the University conceived of K-Ville as a publicity stunt to convince top students and their parents that Duke was a better choice than Harvard, Yale, or Princeton? Because somehow K-Ville is functionally and fundamentally a vastly different thing than it was in 1990 when I started tenting?

I hope not, because none of those things are true.

Instead, it's time to write this story about K-Ville because Maryland is jumping ship for cash. Because UNC put athletics above academic integrity. Because Miami got yet another hit from the NCAA. Because important people at Penn State decided to protect a prominent guy in the football program (and the football program) at the cost of kids' safety.

So why pick on Duke and K-Ville? Because it's famous, it'll get hits on the website, and it's an easy target because now, unlike in 1990 when CBS come tent to tent to interview us crazy Cameron kids and talk about what a neat little tradition we had going on there, people prefer to look at Duke as the embodiment of the rich and entitled, not as a school where smart kids bust their butts to get a great education.

[Duke76]

I find the article about 25 years too late. It's kind of funny the way the media decides what to pick on and when to pick on it. Is it time to look at K-Ville as a great example of the potentially bad influence of major college sports on education because Duke is jumping from the ACC to another conference for money? Because the quality of education at Duke has deteriorated? Because a study showed that students who tent for the basketball game do more poorly in the same classes than those who don't? Because the University conceived of K-Ville as a publicity stunt to convince top students and their parents that Duke was a better choice than Harvard, Yale, or Princeton? Because somehow K-Ville is functionally and fundamentally a vastly different thing than it was in 1990 when I started tenting?

I hope not, because none of those things are true.

Instead, it's time to write this story about K-Ville because Maryland is jumping ship for cash. Because UNC put athletics above academic integrity. Because Miami got yet another hit from the NCAA. Because important people at Penn State decided to protect a prominent guy in the football program (and the football program) at the cost of kids' safety.

So why pick on Duke and K-Ville? Because it's famous, it'll get hits on the website, and it's an easy target because now, unlike in 1990 when CBS come tent to tent to interview us crazy Cameron kids and talk about what a neat little tradition we had going on there, people prefer to look at Duke as the embodiment of the rich and entitled, not as a school where smart kids bust their butts to get a great education.

And send it to their print department as a reply to the editorial...I believe it would be picked up for print in the Monday edition....well done

[oldnavy]

Well, did you read the article or not? Your last line seems to imply that maybe you read it after all...?

I happen to have found the article an interesting commentary on Duke and K-ville and the struggle that a major university faces in trying to balance the often conflicting interests of big-time athletics and world-class academics. If anything, I would criticize it for being too shallow in it's coverage.

Of course, by starting a thread here about the article you also gave the NYT many more hits...jeeesh! Talk about hypocritical.

No, I didn't read the article. I was very clear on that. What you are referring to in my last line is a reference to the DBR article on the front page of this website. Please pay closer attentention.

I don't read anything in the NY Times, they have no credibility for unbiased reporting. They are agenda driven like most mega media outlets (refer to multiple polling data if you do not trust me).

Also, I am not sure how you make the connection that starting a thread about an article already on the front page of DBR is being hypocritical. Perhaps if I had discovered the article and linked it you would have a legitmate point, but that is not what happened.

Just out of curiosity, did you find the NYT coverage of the Duke Lacross case an interesting commentary on Duke and Privilege as well? Or was theie extensive coverage into the false accusations of 3 young men too shallow as well?

[mapei]

I agree with most of the article. It's unfortunate that he chose Duke as his example to skewer, since he easily could have picked any of 50 other schools and written the same article, perhaps about football rather than basketball. Different things would have been exaggerated and satirized. He happened to choose Duke, which kind of sucks. But that doesn't mean that he's wrong.

[freshmanjs]

No, I didn't read the article. I was very clear on that. What you are referring to in my last line is a reference to the DBR article on the front page of this website. Please pay closer attentention.

I don't read anything in the NY Times, they have no credibility for unbiased reporting. They are agenda driven like most mega media outlets (refer to multiple polling data if you do not trust me).

Also, I am not sure how you make the connection that starting a thread about an article already on the front page of DBR is being hypocritical. Perhaps if I had discovered the article and linked it you would have a legitmate point, but that is not what happened.

Just out of curiosity, did you find the NYT coverage of the Duke Lacross case an interesting commentary on Duke and Privilege as well? Or was theie extensive coverage into the false accusations of 3 young men too shallow as well?

sounds like you have some general problems with the NYT. this particular article is actually a pretty reasonable take on the arguably ridiculous nature of college sports. the last paragraph on privilege and cameron didn't resonate for me though.

[oldnavy]

I find the article about 25 years too late. It's kind of funny the way the media decides what to pick on and when to pick on it. Is it time to look at K-Ville as a great example of the potentially bad influence of major college sports on education because Duke is jumping from the ACC to another conference for money? Because the quality of education at Duke has deteriorated? Because a study showed that students who tent for the basketball game do more poorly in the same classes than those who don't? Because the University conceived of K-Ville as a publicity stunt to convince top students and their parents that Duke was a better choice than Harvard, Yale, or Princeton? Because somehow K-Ville is functionally and fundamentally a vastly different thing than it was in 1990 when I started tenting?

I hope not, because none of those things are true.

Instead, it's time to write this story about K-Ville because Maryland is jumping ship for cash. Because UNC put athletics above academic integrity. Because Miami got yet another hit from the NCAA. Because important people at Penn State decided to protect a prominent guy in the football program (and the football program) at the cost of kids' safety.

So why pick on Duke and K-Ville? Because it's famous, it'll get hits on the website, and it's an easy target because now, unlike in 1990 when CBS come tent to tent to interview us crazy Cameron kids and talk about what a neat little tradition we had going on there, people prefer to look at Duke as the embodiment of the rich and entitled, not as a school where smart kids bust their butts to get a great education.

All of what you said, plus Class Envy. Duke is viewed as elitist, so tear it down. I wonder where the executives of the New York Times, NBC, ABC, Fox, MSNBC send their kids to school. I am sure they all go to public universities, with average academic standards, right??

[willywoody]

Is the author the same person with the phot essay on Jay Williams and lives in Chapel Hill?

[davekay1971]

sounds like you have some general problems with the NYT. this particular article is actually a pretty reasonable take on the arguably ridiculous nature of college sports. the last paragraph on privilege and cameron didn't resonate for me though.

The central problem with this article is certainly not the idea that revenue generation through college sports come into conflict with the mission of education. The problem is the use of K-Ville to illustrate this. Read the article closely and you'll find that the author doesn't make any serious attempt to connect K-Ville to the problem he's discussing. There's a very loose, unsupported connect-the-dots thrown in at the end of the article, and it doesn't remotely hold water. The decision to use K-Ville is entirely because it's famous and will get "hits."

Perhaps a case of revenue generation through internet hits coming into conflict with the mission of quality journalism?

[Grey Devil]

No, I didn't read the article. I was very clear on that. What you are referring to in my last line is a reference to the DBR article on the front page of this website. Please pay closer attentention.

I don't read anything in the NY Times, they have no credibility for unbiased reporting. They are agenda driven like most mega media outlets (refer to multiple polling data if you do not trust me).

Also, I am not sure how you make the connection that starting a thread about an article already on the front page of DBR is being hypocritical. Perhaps if I had discovered the article and linked it you would have a legitmate point, but that is not what happened.

Just out of curiosity, did you find the NYT coverage of the Duke Lacross case an interesting commentary on Duke and Privilege as well? Or was there extensive coverage into the false accusations of 3 young men too shallow as well?

It is possible that one could read the boards before reading the front page...and since you did not cite any reference I went to the NYT.

And I do share your disgust with the NYT for their pathetic coverage of the lacrosse case. You are free to not support the NYT in any way you choose and to state your opinion about their publication similarly.

But please understand my context as well.

[Buckeye Devil]

I have a friend back in rural eastern Ohio whose daughter got a full-ride to Duke. This guy is no elitist. No college education. No big time job. Not a person of financial means. Only a minister of a small local congregation. Not exactly the elitist snobbery referred to in the NYT piece.

[miramar]

I was a grad student at Duke so my experience in Cameron was a bit more sedate than most, but thinking of my daughter, a recent graduate, I had to laugh at the following:

"Cameron, you realize, is not just a basketball arena. It is a tabernacle, a place whose trappings, rituals and exclusivity are perfect to prepare Duke students for the places they are likely to wind up after graduation: big banks and law firms, corporate board rooms and country club locker rooms. No, Cameron is not only a basketball arena. It is a flawless expression of the thing that beats in the heart of Duke and every other elite school in the land: privilege."

She is currently working part-time at a community college while taking creative writing workshops and online courses so that down the road she can get an MFA and become a novelist. She spent her last two years at Duke in tent one, and will never work at a big bank or law firm, and I don't ever expect to see her in a board room or country club. She got good grades, learned a lot, had the time of her life, and her only regret in her four years in Durham is that she never saw Duke beat Carolina in Cameron.

So much for stereotypes and so much for bad reporting. By now the NYT should know that they need to check their biases at the door when they write about Duke.

[oldnavy]

sounds like you have some general problems with the NYT. this particular article is actually a pretty reasonable take on the arguably ridiculous nature of college sports. the last paragraph on privilege and cameron didn't resonate for me though.

Yes I do, but it is not limited to the NYT. Add in ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, CNN, and just about anyother national multi-million dollar "news" organization. Why, because the news they report is biased towards either what they want to promote or towards what generates a better bottom line (more viewers, sales).

I got this way about 15 years ago... may be an age thing?

Quick story. When I was doing a fellowship in Infectious Diseases at DUMC back in the mid 90's, we had a TV reporter come to do a story on Vancomycin Resistant Entercoccus (VRE). There were and are few drugs that effectively treat infections caused by that bacteria. I was present during the interviews, and the ID doctor explained very clearly that VRE was an issue, but that it was not the cause of death in any cases at DUMC. He explained that the bacteria is not particularly deadly, and that in all the deaths were the patient had VRE, other causes were responsible for death (usually multi-system failure) and that VRE was more opportunistic than virulent. In other words, yes people died WITH VRE, but not FROM VRE.

The lead story that night on WTVD was "Untreatable Bacteria Causing Deaths at DUMC".

See that is much more scary and interesting, than the truth.

So, no I have little respect for the media.

[oldnavy]

It is possible that one could read the boards before reading the front page...and since you did not cite any reference I went to the NYT.

And I do share your disgust with the NYT for their pathetic coverage of the lacrosse case. You are free to not support the NYT in any way you choose and to state your opinion about their publication similarly.

But please understand my context as well.

I fully understand you context, just took a little offense to the hypocritical comment, but I will get over it!

It is the differences we have that make this world an interesting place. I would not want to live in a world where everyone shared my views on everything!! How boring would that be?

Listen, I hope you have a very enjoyable Sunday, and let's pull Duke through this afternoon!!

[oldnavy]

I was a grad student at Duke so my experience in Cameron was a bit more sedate than most, but thinking of my daughter, a recent graduate, I had to laugh at the following:

"Cameron, you realize, is not just a basketball arena. It is a tabernacle, a place whose trappings, rituals and exclusivity are perfect to prepare Duke students for the places they are likely to wind up after graduation: big banks and law firms, corporate board rooms and country club locker rooms. No, Cameron is not only a basketball arena. It is a flawless expression of the thing that beats in the heart of Duke and every other elite school in the land: privilege."

She is currently working part-time at a community college while taking creative writing workshops and online courses so that down the road she can get an MFA and become a novelist. She spent her last two years at Duke in tent one, and will never work at a big bank or law firm, and I don't ever expect to see her in a board room or country club. She got good grades, learned a lot, had the time of her life, and her only regret in her four years in Durham is that she never saw Duke beat Carolina in Cameron.

So much for stereotypes and so much for bad reporting. By now the NYT should know that they need to check their biases at the door when they write about Duke.

With the risk of monopolizing this thread, I have to say, that quote is exactly what I would have expected from the Times. They do not do their homework, they just regurgitate stereotypes that feed into class envy.

Thanks, for sharing.

[Rich]

With the risk of monopolizing this thread, I have to say, that quote is exactly what I would have expected from the Times. They do not do their homework, they just regurgitate stereotypes that feed into class envy.

Personally, I enjoy reading the NY Times and thought the article was a fair, although not detailed, view of the push-pull between big time athletics and education. Another quote from the article that represents Duke in a more positive and realistic light:

In “Buck Duke’s University,” a withering satire that appeared in H. L. Mencken’s American Mercury magazine in 1933, W. J. Cash derided the tobacco baron James Buchanan Duke’s school as a “Babbitt factory — a mill for grinding out go-get-’em boys in the wholesale and undeviating fashion in which his Chesterfield plant across the way ground out cigarettes.”

That is a far cry from what Duke is today. It is a diverse institution that attracts qualified and motivated students from nearly every state and some 90 foreign countries. Consistently ranked among the top 10 universities in the country, Duke has a strong reputation for teaching and research, as well as renowned graduate schools of business, public policy, engineering, medicine and law.

[sagegrouse]

Although I don't consider myself a man of easy virtue, I tend to agree with Mae West that the only bad publicity is no publicity.

I read the article. Even worse, I have read the Times every day for the past 20+ years. I had a question before, during and after the reading of the article. Who the heck is Bill Morris? Here's who I think he is:

Bill Morris is a staff writer for The Millions. He is the author of the novels Motor City and All Souls' Day. His writing has appeared in Granta, the New York Times, L.A. Weekly, the (London) Independent, the Washington Post Magazine and The Daily Beast. He lives in New York City.

One of the pieces I found related a Reynolds Price story from the time he lived in Durham, N.C. So this is the guy.

While I know it will be viewed with sensitivity by folks at Duke and especially at DBR, I thought it was an entertaining and ostensibly well-researched piece of journalism. Nor do I think it portrays Duke or its students or its faculty in an unfavorable light. But what do I know?

I think the story is best viewed as an entertaining narrative on the conflicts (and some synergies) between academia and college athletics at an elite private university. And, as an example at this time of year, Duke is the obvious choice. I guess in November one could write about Stanford.

My main qualm is about the historically poor judgement of the Times sports editors in selecting material for their feature articles. The LAX junk (Selena Roberts, mostly) is the main case, but the tripe written about Tommy Amaker at Harvard was ridiculous, even if less momentous. Morris in not a Times staffer. He submitted it for publication (conversations beforehand, I am sure), and, therefore, there was no requirement to publish it.

Anyway, I thought it was a good read and reasonable balanced given the inherent contradictions between academics and big-time athletics.

sagegrouse
'I did stand next to Brodhead at the San Antonio Final Four, which was just before he became President of Duke. We chatted; he said it was his first Duke sports function, IIRC; and then he was called to the stage to hug the Blue Devil. Chortle, chortle! Welcome to Duke!'

[MCFinARL]

this particular article is actually a pretty reasonable take on the arguably ridiculous nature of college sports. the last paragraph on privilege and cameron didn't resonate for me though.

Personally, I enjoy reading the NY Times and thought the article was a fair, although not detailed, view of the push-pull between big time athletics and education. Another quote from the article that represents Duke in a more positive and realistic light:

In “Buck Duke’s University,” a withering satire that appeared in H. L. Mencken’s American Mercury magazine in 1933, W. J. Cash derided the tobacco baron James Buchanan Duke’s school as a “Babbitt factory — a mill for grinding out go-get-’em boys in the wholesale and undeviating fashion in which his Chesterfield plant across the way ground out cigarettes.”

That is a far cry from what Duke is today. It is a diverse institution that attracts qualified and motivated students from nearly every state and some 90 foreign countries. Consistently ranked among the top 10 universities in the country, Duke has a strong reputation for teaching and research, as well as renowned graduate schools of business, public policy, engineering, medicine and law.

I agree that this article, on balance, was a relatively fair discussion of a nationwide issue for which Duke provided more a timely and attention-grabbing example than a whipping boy--but the "privilege" meme at the end was disappointing, the kind of lazy strategy used by someone who needs a "thought-provoking" ending.

It is, in fact, a great privilege to be able to go to Duke, and in that sense, all of Duke's students are "privileged." It's also true that, like any high-quality private (i.e. expensive) US university, Duke has its share of students who come from economically privileged backgrounds and of students who will go to futures in banking, corporate law, etc. But that is only a part of the student body, one that has come to be seen, for whatever reason, as much more representative of the entire institution than it really is. And ironically, at least based on what I heard from my children when they were at Duke, there is not much overlap between the Cameron Crazies and the group that are most invested in their roles as the sons and daughters of privilege.

In the end, Cameron Indoor as a symbol of the uneasy relationship between academics and sports at universities is reasonable enough. But Cameron Indoor as a metaphor for socioeconomic privilege is just--a weak metaphor.