an actual runner wrote:
I don't think KVB's comments will have any impact on recruiting compared to the fact that Duke has ruined more talent than any other program in the last decade. That's a hard title to earn.
yep. maybe this is part of the reason no one knew who she was before this thread? I suppose she figured that if she couldnt make a name in running, she would do it by making a controversial statement that would get the feminaz*s on the war path and feeling all tingly inside.
Is that the main quote on this running website bashes Duke but, the quote that would have been more insightful was this.
CK: How was Duke University for you as an athlete and for personal growth?
KV: By way of my athletic development, Duke was an incredibly valuable experience. I have great admiration for and trust in my coaches Kevin Jermyn and Liz Wort; they did an excellent job of preparing their athletes for high level competition while being mindful of not over-training or over-racing us. Kevin continually espoused a belief and hope that his athletes would have athletic careers beyond our year as Blue Devils, and based his coaching on what would be healthy, enjoyable and sustainable for the runners. Racing in the NCAA was hugely beneficial to my post-collegiate career; the preparation, hype, nerves and calibre of competition that I experienced at meets like Penn Relays or the NCAA Championships prepared me extremely well for international meets like the World University Games, World Championships and Francophone Games.
I know both Kevin and Liz and this assessment is spot on. I get tired of all the bashing on here against Duke CC and Track from those who have no clue what they are talking about. I find it interesting that nothing positive can make it to the top quote via the brojos.
Letsrun.com wrote:
We had to actually cut the quote down to make it fit above. Full quote from collegiate 1k record holder and former Duke runner and Moscow World CHamp 1500 runner Kate Van Buskirk is below:
"By the end of my time at Duke, I thought that if I saw one more poster for an on-campus frat party with a “pimps and hoes” or “bosses and slutty secretaries” theme, I would lose my mind."
http://athleticsillustrated.com/interviews/kate-van-buskirk-interview/
She should have gone to Notre Dame. No Greek life at all on campus. No fraternities or sororities.
Why in the world would a frat have a Pimps and Ho's themed party or Bosses and Sluts party and advertise it. Duke sucks...literally.
anapaix wrote:
I suppose she figured that if she couldnt make a name in running...
She can't?
Duke History:
2-time All American (2nd Indoor mile 2011, 3rd outdoor 1500m 2011)
NCAA-record holder (indoor 1000m, 2:41.00, 2011)
ACC 1500m Champion 2011
Anchor of Penn Relays 4×800 Winning Team 2011
Canadian Teams:
Pan Am Jr’s 2005 (5th at 800m)
NACAC JR XC Champion 2006
IAAF World Junior XC Champs 2005, 2006
World University Games (FISU) 2011 (finalist at 1500m)
IAAF World Championships 2013 (semi-finalist at 1500m)
Francophone Games 2013 (4th at 1500m)
Canadian Results:
National JR 800m Champion 2004
National JR 1500m Silver 2004
National JR 800m Silver 2005
National JR XC Champion 2005
National SR XC Bronze 2010
Canadian Olympic Trials 1500m 4th 2012
Canadian 1500m Champion 2013
Personal Bests:
1000 Metres – 2:38.76
1500 Metres – 4:07.36
2000 Metres – 5:40.70
5000 Metres – 15:29.72
anapaix wrote:
...she would do it by making a controversial statement that would get the feminaz*s on the war path and feeling all tingly inside.
Please explain what you believe was so "controversial" about what she said concerning Duke University. (If you had any attention span at all, you probably would have read the whole interview and realize that what she said about her own country's politics and policies was a far more potent swat than her musings about Duke.) The strongest of her statements is unquestionably the claim that she saw a lot of "in-your-face sexism." How is this controversial? Because you think it's not true? Because it's not worth pointing out? Nowhere did she say that she thinks this ethos is unique to Duke, or that she felt powerless (on the contrary, she mentioned getting involved with the Baldwin Scholars, hardly a "militant feminist" organization by any stretch), or that she regrets having attended the school.
All in all it's difficult to decide which part of your post was the most idiotic; it's more or less a dead heat between the notion she can't be recognized for her running and the idea that she's some loose verbal cannon with an axe to grind against all things male.
Kate VB wrote:
Thanks for sharing your opinions, Jeffrey...although I think its unfortunate that you chose such an agressive tone with which to voice your thoughts. The point I was making in the interview was that what you consider to be just "some fliers posted about frat parties" were indicative of much more pervasive and constant gender inequality that affected both myself and many other young women on campus in very damaging ways. The rates of sexual abuse, rape and harrassment were upsettingly high on campus during my years there and these fliers and parties--and the acceptance of them by students and administrators--reflect the view that many (but certainly not all) men have of women, and this can lead to these very real and terrible acts of sexual violence.
Thanks to a combination of my experiences (good and bad) at Duke and my other life experiences, I am proud to say that I "a mature adult, ready to contribute to society", as evidenced by my involvement and work in many of my communities at local and national levels. I appreciate your input, Jeffrey, I just think that you are making blanket judgements about myself and all "liberals" without knowing me personally, knowing Duke intimately (I'm assuming...were you a student there?) or truly considering the consequences of the capus culture I'm describing.
Brilliant and measured response by Kate VB to the ignorant flailing of an anonymous poster.
Americans should take note of the level of discourse in this interview, compared with the canned questions and cliched answers in 99% of your sports media.
Canuck out.
jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:
Ironic that Duke is picked on - the site of the embarrassingly botched Duke Lacrosse team fiasco a few years back, where our society wrongly convicted some Duke athletes because of an all consuming fear of not being PC or 'tolerant' enough..
True that the allegations of rape were false, but people forget why the 2 young females were on the Duke campus with the lacrosse players in the first place -- they were strippers hired by the lacrosse team to come perform sexually gratifying performances. Seems you chose the wrong example to rebut Kate's claim.
Don't forget the infamous Duke Senior Honors Thesis on notable Duke athletes sex lives -- "An education beyond the classroom: excelling in the realm of horizontal academics", by Duke alum Karen Owen. Quite humorous, and representative of the misogynistic behavior of many college athlete meatheads.
** Have to google 'Deadspin Karen Owen', the hyperlink can't get past the LetsRun filter
.61% is obviously 610/100,000. Forgive my saying '611', as my toddler was climbing up my chair at the moment. But at least I got the answer in the right ballpark, in contrast to Boomhauer and math major.
By the way, I went to Williams and not Duke, as you can tell by the fact that I was the only one to point out Boomhauer's math problem, as well as to avoid the series of errors in spelling, grammar, and ethics, unlike the Dukies on this thread.
Canadians are just smarter wrote:
Kate VB wrote:Thanks for sharing your opinions, Jeffrey...although I think its unfortunate that you chose such an agressive tone with which to voice your thoughts. The point I was making in the interview was that what you consider to be just "some fliers posted about frat parties" were indicative of much more pervasive and constant gender inequality that affected both myself and many other young women on campus in very damaging ways. The rates of sexual abuse, rape and harrassment were upsettingly high on campus during my years there and these fliers and parties--and the acceptance of them by students and administrators--reflect the view that many (but certainly not all) men have of women, and this can lead to these very real and terrible acts of sexual violence.
Thanks to a combination of my experiences (good and bad) at Duke and my other life experiences, I am proud to say that I "a mature adult, ready to contribute to society", as evidenced by my involvement and work in many of my communities at local and national levels. I appreciate your input, Jeffrey, I just think that you are making blanket judgements about myself and all "liberals" without knowing me personally, knowing Duke intimately (I'm assuming...were you a student there?) or truly considering the consequences of the capus culture I'm describing.
Brilliant and measured response by Kate VB to the ignorant flailing of an anonymous poster.
Americans should take note of the level of discourse in this interview, compared with the canned questions and cliched answers in 99% of your sports media.
Canuck out.
canucks should take note of the flood of Americans headed to canada to attend college to compete for those formidable athletic powerhouses of the great white north, lol
dookie lax scumbags wrote:
jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:Ironic that Duke is picked on - the site of the embarrassingly botched Duke Lacrosse team fiasco a few years back, where our society wrongly convicted some Duke athletes because of an all consuming fear of not being PC or 'tolerant' enough..
True that the allegations of rape were false, but people forget why the 2 young females were on the Duke campus with the lacrosse players in the first place -- they were strippers hired by the lacrosse team to come perform sexually gratifying performances. Seems you chose the wrong example to rebut Kate's claim.
Duke and other universities have ENCOURAGED the hiring of strippers, so can hardly reverse course and now condemn it. Duke and other universities have hosted STRIPPER shows, excuse me "Sexual Art Shows, and had mandatory attendance for students in certain classes. The "show" is meant to teach students about the stripper's occupation and to gain an appreciation for their "work". The show includes multiple striptease acts including a domintrix.
From an article about the show: "The show was sponsored by the following official university departments, centers and student organizations: the Duke Women’s Center, the Duke Student Health Center, the Healthy Devils, the Program for the Study of Sexualities, the Campus Council, the Women’s Studies Department, the University and Cultural Fund, Students for Choice, Students for Choice and the Sexual Assault Support Services. The Art Show received a total of $3,500 and high-level official sanctioning from the university, according to Kenneth Larrey, president of the Duke Students for an Ethical Duke,
The performers did not just take their clothes off – and the actual nudity part of the show was rather tame. But mere nudity could hardly compare with a show that began with the Art Show’s founder and announcer, Annie Oakley, imploring the audience to stand up and shout “I take it up the butt!” Some other highlights, or lowlights if you prefer, included:
A transvestite, naked except for some strategically placed tape, with the words “F___ Bush” painted on his chest, kneeled on all fours and lit a sparkler protruding out of his rectum with “America the Beautiful” playing.
A bare-breasted stripper sang a lewd song about Saint Bridget of Ireland, with lyrics mocking the act of ascension as she climbed to the top of a stripper’s pole.
A stripper, in the guise of a U.S. flag-draped Lady Justice, emptied coins out of her scales, pulled dollar bills out of her clothes as she removed them, and yanked a string of dollar bills out of her posterior as the sound system played Dolly Parton’s version of “God Bless the U.S.A.” She ended her act by saluting and holding up her middle finger to the crowd. The announcer referred to it as her “Infamous Patriot Act.” Her most private area was kept covered by a small American flag.
A porn actress read a series of prose-poems. In one, entitled “Spit,” she described how another actress spit into her eye and then licked it out. Another, called “Staph,” was about an infection on her genitals.
A dominatrix donned a large, “strap-on” male sex organ, and pretended to masturbate while the crowd was urged to shout “faster, faster,” in Chinese."
Can't have it both ways. Can't promote strippers on campus and then be surprised when groups actually hire them.
Ho Hum wrote:
I find it amusing that KVB complaining about this stuff is a "typical liberal", yet (social) conservatives make the exact same criticisms about colleges all the time. My school got posted on the Daily Caller, a site full of conservatives, for hosting a discussion involving porn stars, and the comments went nuts. As someone else mentioned, Tom Wolfe -- again not a liberal -- raised the same issues about the same school in I am Charlotte Simmons. So why are the same arguments presented as "liberal" and "conservative"? Is it just because you don't like a young woman speaking her mind?
Because they're not the same arguments.
Liberal objection to Pimp/Ho and CEO/SS parties: The concept objectifies women and forces them to play a role in which they are submissive to men. If the party consisted of some deviant sexual theme like dominant/submissive men only, or the women were dominant, or if it had anything to do with almost any deviant sex, many liberals would find that just fine.
Libertarian objection to Pimp/Ho and CEO/SS parties: People should be free to act out as they wish, even if their own choices are repugnant to someone else. As said previously, no one is forcing these young women to show up and play the demeaning game. Sadly, many women have bought into the idea that is fun to be the sex toy to a series of different men, courtship having been replaced by sex without emotional attachment.
Conservative (more specifically, religious) objection to Pimp/Ho and CEO/SS parties: It is dehumanizing and sinful. Sexual relationships should be used only within the confines of marriage and parties like this only lead men and women away from a respectful, healthy relationship with one another.
Kate - I was at Duke from 1987-1991 and ran for Buehler. I wasn't super fast but I had my moments. I got my masters at another school later and have worked for 20 years in a couple of industries with some success. I have a broader perspective than most on this topic.
My observation is that the Duke campus is one of the most psychotically politically correct places in the country. I was also in ROTC and my second major was in the liberal arts, so I felt like I had a target on my back anytime I walked into the classroom (white male in ROTC). The actions taken by the administration over the last couple decades have caused me to stop funding the nonsense any longer. I had given thousands over the years to the Trinity College, but cut them off after the lacrosse fiasco. I should have stopped the checks long before then actually.
Several academic departments are loaded with radical professors who are hired more for their political views than for any academic achievement or teaching prowess. I mention this specifically because these are the very people who poison the atmosphere at Duke and put the chill on free speech. They want free speech, as long as it is in line with a very liberal viewpoint. If not, you are labeled a racist or idiot or some other ridiculous epithet.
The parties you mention happen at all major college campuses - let me repeat - at ALL major college campuses. They are highlighted at Duke more than elsewhere because Duke is under a microscope more than most schools. The level of fake outrage is simply higher their than anywhere else.
The real world obviously does not operate like Duke does. Most Duke graduates breathe fresh air after graduation and slowly figure out that the system tried to brainwash them while they were there. Because most Duke students aren't naturally liberal, there is a backlash against the liberal view of the professors, which manifests itself in the parties and events you mentioned.
My advice to you? Be less offended. Grow some thicker skin. The real world is much tougher than the protected cocoon that is Duke University. In five years you won't care at all about the social structure at Duke. You certainly weren't required to attend Duke parties, and living off campus was also an option your last three years there. I wish you all the success in the world.
Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:
so....only certain science theories should be allowed in textbooks? Seems like if you have hundreds of scientists who favor creationism - and who believe evolution is a silly relic of the 19th century - there should be some basis for including more than 1 theory.
OK, now I know you're just a thoroughgoing troll, giggling at your own cleverness in getting both libs and wingnuts riled up with your "biting" criticism of each. I mean, even the most ardent morons understand that even if there are hundreds of creationists with advanced degrees who superficially masquerade as scientists, there are virtually no men or women working in the biological sciences who disagree with the facts about evolution. We're talking about a ratio of literally thousands to one against creationism.
Also, to refer to evolution as a "19th-century relic" is ultra-hilarious. Darwin didn't even know about genes or DNA, yet he nailed the basic mechanisms of inheritance and natural selection despite not knowing the microscopic particulars. Advances in molecular biology in the past 25 or 30 years have confirmed the basic tenets of evolution with almost eerie accuracy.
But you knew all of this, just as you know that science textbooks have limited space and in any event are under no obligation to post garbage "theories" just because a large cadre of religious dimwits would prefer to rail against reason and remain in intellectual darkness rather than challenge their faith and risk the wrath of their jealous, psychotically malevolent, despotic, misogynistic and brain-damaged god-thing. Just like you knew Darwin himself was a Christian who was deeply troubled by the implications of his watershed discoveries.
Carnivore 69 wrote:
...the Duke campus is one of the most psychotically politically correct places in the country.
... so I felt like I had a target on my back anytime I walked into the classroom (white male in ROTC).
... I mention this specifically because these are the very people who poison the atmosphere at Duke and put the chill on free speech. They want free speech, as long as it is in line with a very liberal viewpoint. If not, you are labeled a racist or idiot or some other ridiculous epithet.
....
Carnivore 69 wrote:
... In five years you won't care at all about the social structure at Duke.
Pretty interesting that she should stop caring but you still do.
I've always thought of Duke as for rich kids who get rejected from Ivies (even Penn) whose parents are too proud to say they go to a state school like Rutgers. I wouldn't have even considered applying there. UVA was the same thing for Jersey kids, as well as William and Mary. Duke is not on the same academic level as "real" schools, yet they want to be "elite", which attracts entitled douchebag fratboy types whose parents dressed them in Brooks Brothers kids clothes, and they still wear that shit.
Dartmouth Grad
Allister wrote:
I've always thought of Duke as for rich kids who get rejected from Ivies (even Penn) whose parents are too proud to say they go to a state school like Rutgers.
Whoah, isn't Duke a satellite campus of Rutgers?!
I've been reading this thread all day and responses that defend her or counter some of the lame "political correctness" arguments seem to keep disappearing...
lol…right.
anapaix wrote:
jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:typical liberal mentality. All communication - even frat party flyers - must be censored so as to be judged 'tolerant' by the PC police - which is ironically the height of intolerance..
Then your different from most liberals in this regard. Most want things they do not agree with to be censored.
did not used to be liberal wrote:
NOW, not surprisingly, it turns out casual hookup sex results in some women ending up pregnant, suffering from depression, being faced with either becoming a single mother , having an abortion, or giving a child up for adoption.
I actually feel for these young women because they were lied to from a very young age by the older generation. They were blanketed with movies, tv, magazines, and so forth that pushed the hook up culture. Unfortunately, reality is different that the garbage they have been taught. Often times, a drunken, hook up leaves young women ashamed and depressed rather than feeling liberated. Ask the counselors at universities and they will confirm this.
So you agree with Kate that having posters advertising these alcohol-fueled sex blowouts might be misleading at best and destructive at worst? That the good time these posters promise is in fact an invitation to danger and remorse? I mean, if you're going to blame "movies, TV, magazines, and so forth" for promoting a "hook-up culture," it makes sense to assign even more blame to real-life influences such as "bros and hoes" posters. Right?
Note that Kate didn't say word one about the Duke lacrosse case -- an unfortunate event that Kate's critics here are blindly and perversely attributing to liberalism run amok. If those things you mention -- changing the grades of lacrosse players, etc. -- actually happened on a widespread basis, I'm sure that Kate would aggressively condemn such plainly unjustified and wrongheaded mayhem. Anyone would.
It's crazy -- libs are roundly portrayed as wallowing in victimhood, but here we see countless people complaining about being victims of Duke white-male hate, not just with the lacrosse crap but in some cases even going back to the freakin' 1980s.
If those things you mention -- changing the grades of lacrosse players, etc. -- actually happened on a widespread basis, I'm sure that Kate would aggressively condemn such plainly unjustified and wrongheaded mayhem. Anyone would.
There's no "if" -- all of those events did happen during the Duke lacrosse hoax.
You also are making an enormous assumption that KVB would "aggressively condemn" such acts. Really? When has she ever done that? You further are completely wrong in stating that "anyone would" condemn such acts. Really? How about Duke's administration, which idly stood by and did nothing? How about all of the liberal profs who were responsible for such acts? You should get a better grip on the facts before posting again.