The life of the mind in Toronto

Another slice of life in higher education and in Canada: University of Toronto president under fire for remark. Read it — I have no idea where to begin.
Posted by Jim Kalb at November 15, 2002 09:22 AM | Send

“Brown said an apology from Birgeneau isn’t enough.

He must extend a hand to African students in Toronto to help them attend university.”

Those two sentences say it all. The point, all along, was to advance the agenda of providing more handouts to blacks.

Decent people accept a sincere apology when one is offered. But when someone has an axe to grind, and is looking for an opportunity to be offended, no apology is ever appreciated or sufficient.

This was a power play, pure and simple. Birgeneau inadvertently provided them with a tactical opening. Their stubborn refusal to consider more charitable interpretations of his intent proves, I think, that they saw it that way.

Posted by: Charlie on November 15, 2002 12:06 PM

The article is among other things confirmation that merely stating an objective fact can get one thrown out from under the protection of the liberal big tent: just observing, without at all advocating, that some students may be avoiding the university because of its racial mix — an objective fact — is to be a racist. Notice too that one must at all costs avoid being called a “racist”. To be a “racist” is to be a subhuman untermensch oppressor, and we all know that subhuman untermensch oppressors have forfeited their rights and have nothing to say that is worth listening to. These untermensch must be eliminated one way or another in order for the new world of the new free and equal supermen to emerge. One of the current techniques being used is multigenerational genocide by mass immigration without assimilation. I suppose that might be better than some of the more impatient methods used by liberals to exterminate the untermensch, but in the long run the objective and result are the same.

The university president’s main error was in failing to categorically condemn those students who avoid the university in the same breath in which he observed the fact of their avoidance. It is critical to identify and focus on the oppressors in order to be sure that they can be eradicated through compulsory “reeducation”, or if necessary through more aggressive means.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 12:28 PM

I’d begin by asking to see some statistics and evidence, instead of assuming that the statement is true and going off on another anti-liberal rant as a result.

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 12:47 PM

Well, it isn’t so much that he stated it as an actual fact as that he raised it as an objectively possible fact that he found anecdotally plausible. Presenting a hypothesis about a possible objective state of affairs without simultaneously condemning that possibility as a horror is what placed Birgeneau in danger of being thrown out of the Tolerance Tent.

If I were to say “maybe Hitler did not think he was lying; maybe he really believed what he said he believed and yet still did what he did; what are the implications of that possibility?” I would be treated in similar fashion (although I am not a life long civil rights activist so I expect I would have less teflon than Birgeneau). So merely exploring an objective possibility in order to determine its objective implications is enough to forfeit ones’ rights and exit the big tolerant tent.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 12:58 PM

And anyway, to be precise, “some students may be avoiding the university because of its racial mix” is an apodictically true statement. No further evidence is required in order to make the “may” assertion true, although comprehensive information about the states of mind of all applicants, if such knowledge were possible in principle, could conceivably falsify it. So Birgeneau was vilified, made to publicly apologize, and told that public apology was not enough, all because he made an objectively true statement. I don’t have any problem with any of that in the abstract, but it is certainly hypocritical of tolerant liberals.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 1:05 PM

He’s the President of the most prestigious university in Canada and he was speaking in a public forum. If that is his contention, then it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence. He couldn’t, so he apologized.

Mis-speaking and apologizing for it is one thing. It’s stretching things to see it as any more, whether it is those who are looking to be offended from the left OR the right.

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:09 PM

Given that Birgeneau was accused of being a racist rather than of having the facts wrong Jane’s point is a nonsequitir.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 1:12 PM

Matt, perhaps you should read this article in which no one is accused of being a racist before dismissing my comments as a non sequitur because you’d rather believe the incident was just another example of liberal oppression.

I’m not sure if the html link is working from the preview pane, so will post the link here as well:

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:39 PM

Murphy Brown, of the Organization of Parents of Black Children, says in the article to which Mr. Kalb linked:

“For him to say white students are not attending the university because there are too many students of colour, that was shocking to say the least,” she said.”I don’t know if he’s a racist. The remarks that he made there were racist,” she said.

Brown did not say that she thought he had the facts wrong and that those facts should be determined. Brown did not advocate a study to determine if in fact white students avoid the university because of its racial mix. I expect that Brown would probably find the proposal to perform such a study “racist” as well.

Jane is of course welcome to discuss other articles as she sees fit. I however was addressing the article actually linked in Mr. Kalb’s original posting. When Jane attempts to change the subject by introducing a different article that is also a nonsequitir.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 1:49 PM

I don’t like his statement for the simple reason that it insinuates that prospective white students are at the very least slightly racist. However, I don’t know the precise context, nor do I know his evidence (he may have anecdotal evidence). Above that, if one does believe that Western society is fundamentally racist, as many left-wing intellectuals do, then all he was doing was reasserting the prevailing orthodoxy.

In summary, then, I can’t quite understand anybody calling his comments racist or questioning his committment to racial diversity, as many clearly have done.

Posted by: Owen Courreges on November 15, 2002 1:50 PM

Matt, please persist in finding one person with a goofy point of view and treating it as an example of liberal oppression in Soviet Canuckistanian academe. And please shift the rules of posting as we go along to ensure that no one can legitimately question your contention in your view.

Yes, liberals are oppressive. Next.

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:58 PM

Owen, I agree…the man mis-spoke during a heated debate. And he’s apologized.

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:59 PM

Methinks Jane doth protest too much. I didn’t “find” anything, I was just discussing the actual article in question from the perspective of this antimodern politically incorrect rightist. That is what this blog is for.

Perhaps Jane really thinks that pointing out her nonsequitir and subsequent attempt to change the subject is “shift[ing] the rules of posting”, but if so it is going to be difficult to have a rational discussion with her.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 2:22 PM

Matt, the subject is, as stated in the original post: “Another slice of life in higher education and in Canada: University of Toronto president under fire for remark.”

I responded to that…and no one is forcing you to either read or respond to my comments. No one is forcing you to discuss the article or incident in question with anyone other than another like-minded “antimodern politically incorrect rightist.”

Here I thought that the people on this blog sounded fairly well educated and could handle more than one source, or go beyond the text. I still think that, despite this little exchange.

So do carry on with those of like minds. Happy discussing!

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 2:49 PM

Owen Courrèges says, “I don’t like [Birgeneau’s] statement for the simple reason that it insinuates that prospective white students are at the very least slightly racist.”

People have tastes in people, Owen, which are none of your or the government’s business. If people’s tastes make them prefer to attend university among a certain ethnic group and not among a certain other one, that’s their affair. Stick your nose where it belongs, please.

And Jane, yes — to the extent liberal government refuses to mind its own damn business in this and so many other ways, it is oppressive. It is holier-than-thou. It is trying to get the mote out of its neighbor’s eye while there is a log in its own eye. It is being a nosy busybody and people are frankly sick-and-tired of it. Liberal and left-wing governments and government bureaucrats need to be told, once and for all, where to get off.

On first seeing what Birgeneau said, I assumed he meant that preferred minorities were simply displacing so many whites that the latter were obliged to go elsewhere — which clearly must be happening also, and if taking place on a quotas basis is wrong and is yet one more example of the oppressiveness of liberals.

Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 2:57 PM

Unadorned: I’ll bet that you don’t know what the racial mix is at the U of T. And I’ll bet that you don’t know there are no quotas. And I’ll further bet that you don’t have a clue about recruitment-acceptance rates at the U of T. In fact, I’ll bet that you don’t have a sniff of the state of postsecondary education in Ontario at all, or the political bent of the provincial government (which has nothing to do with the story in question, by the way).

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 3:02 PM

Mr. Courreges comments do I think articulate the true situation *from the liberal perspective*. From the liberal perspective it should appear odd that Birgeneau was accused of racism when all he did was affirm leftist orthodoxy in his remarks.

There are problems with the perspective itself, though, starting with the notion that “racist” is a well-defined category to begin with. Jim Kalb’s writing on the vindication of stereotypes is particularly helpful here.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:03 PM

Jane mistakes my pointing out of her change-the-subject technique for an unwillingness to discuss other subjects. I am more than willing to discuss other subjects, other articles of related interest, and other aspects of whatever is of current interest. I am unwilling to treat a change of subject as if it addressed the original question, though, because to do so would require me to compromise basic rationality.

Jane seems to think that when she said:

“He’s the President of the most prestigious university in Canada and he was speaking in a public forum. If that is his contention, then it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence. He couldn’t, so he apologized.”

that that addresses the problem of why Birgeneau was called a racist. It does not. It addresses a different possible problem of why some may have questioned Birgeneau on the facts, but the question of why he was called a racist is clearly unrelated to Jane’s issue. I pointed out the nonsequitir.

When I posted a quote from one Murphy Brown, whose point of view is a theme of the article from start to finish, Jane accuses me of:

“…finding one person with a goofy point of view and treating it as an example of liberal oppression…”

She then included a link to an entirely different article as a way of reinforcing this attempt at changing the subject.

It is entirely possible, of course, that Jane simply does not want to talk about why Birgeneau was called a racist, or that she did not realize that my posts were addressing the implications of Birgeneau being called a racist.

Now if Jane wants to engage in civilized discussion of just about anything that is certainly possible here. There are a few things she will find are not tolerated here, though. I was going to say that one of those things is intellectual sloppiness, but that is not quite right. Intellectual sloppiness is tolerated; but attempts to take one’s own intellectual sloppiness and pin responsibility for it on others is not. Gentlemen do not tolerate that sort of thing.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:27 PM

If I were a gentleman as evidenced by my opponent in this tit for tat, I’d snidely point out Matt’s pseudo-intellectual redundancy in a former post, instead of concentrating on the issue at hand and make some comment about intellectual sloppiness. But I’m not. So I won’t.

Or I’d question the use of the passive voice..”was called a racist”…by whom? By a wingnut, but here I thought the topic wasn’t “wingnuts say stupid things and get into print”, but “life in higher education in Toronto.”

Tsk tsk…poor little antimodern. Life is tough when no one wants to just agree with you.

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 3:43 PM

I suppose I can interpret Jane’s comment to mean that she doesn’t think anyone important has called Birgeneau a racist, and that therefore focusing on it as an issue with implications is intellectually sloppy. Given that we have two articles on the table, and the central theme of one of them is that Birgeneau is accused of racism for his remarks, I don’t know why she would come to that conclusion; if in fact it accurately represents her POV.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:51 PM

Another wing nut on the site Jane pointed out thinks Birgeneau’s comments were racist:

“Regardless of whether he is racist or not racist, he made those comments, which were racist,” Emily Sadowki, president of the association of part-time undergraduate students, told the campus newspaper, The Varsity. “He represents this institution — which is racist.”

Clearly there is more than one wing nut out there, so I’m not sure why they should be off limits to discussion. Of the three articles we now have on the topic two of them give air time to the view that Birgeneau’s comments were racist. As with everything there are other points of view as well, but again I am not sure why discussing this one should be considered off limits.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:57 PM

It isn’t just the wingnuts, its the journalists too. Or maybe the journalists are winguts themselves. From the article:

“As to the question of what Mr. Birgeneau actually meant with his comment, that is difficult to answer — because we do not know what definition of the word ‘diversity’ he had in mind at the time.

If Mr. Birgeneau meant diverse in the dictionary sense — ‘unlike in nature or qualities; varied’ — then his comment is difficult to defend, for it would imply that white students are repelled by the fact that a wide variety of non-white students may be found on the U of T campus. Such a statement is not only offensive, it is factually inaccurate. As such, it can only be construed as a gaffe, and Mr. Birgeneau is correct to apologize profusely for it.”

So if Birgeneau actually meant to imply the possibility that students are avoiding the institution on account of race, simply making that conjecture about a possible factual state of affairs is offensive. It also implies that we’d better be careful about what the meaning of the word “is” is in our public discussions, unless we want to face the moral wrath of offended liberalism.

As I said, methinks Jane doth protest too much.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 4:14 PM

Jane says,

“Unadorned: I’ll bet that you don’t know what the racial mix is at the U of T. And I’ll bet that you don’t know there are no quotas. And I’ll further bet that you don’t have a clue about recruitment-acceptance rates at the U of T. In fact, I’ll bet that you don’t have a sniff of the state of postsecondary education in Ontario at all, or the political bent of the provincial government … “

In response, I stand by my original statement:

” … [I]f [displacement of white students is] taking place on a quotas basis, [that] is wrong and is yet one more example of the oppressiveness of liberals.”

Jane, you say “there are no quotas.” I do not believe you. (No one on this planet in his right mind would.)

We can be sure of certain things without having to look them up. One is that the sun will rise tomorrow. Another is that there are racial quotas at the U. of T.

Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 4:15 PM

Unadorned: the article to which I just provided a link says the following:

“As things stand, the University of Toronto does not have an official affirmative action hiring or admission policy.”

Heaven only knows what the actual policy is, since every public institution in America and Canada has nondiscrimination requirements. I don’t know enough about Canuckistan to be helpful on that, and on whether whatever-the-policy-is can properly be implicitly construed as quotas, but at first brush the evidence is against.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 4:29 PM

Matt, thanks, but liberal liars camouflage things in many ways. They have racial quotas. Count on it.

Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 4:34 PM

Unadorned: I do agree that often a modest reform hides an even more deadly reform, but I am not much on conspiracy theories. Something as big, universal, and as public as liberalism isn’t going to be able to hide a secret cabal of subterfuge very well, and the hiring and admission practices of a university are a fairly public affair. “Quotas” to most mean a formal requirement for proportional representation, and obviously the UoT does not have that. I suppose if your point is that the de-facto system acts as if it had such a formal requirement that is an argument that could be made, but you can hardly place the burden of making that argument on Jane.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 4:42 PM

Jane’s article doesn’t give any air time to direct accusations of racism against Birgeneau, its true. The central theme is that Birgeneau is deeply apologetic about the whole affair and thinks that maybe even something good can come of it. He says:

“I don’t mind people pushing me on diversity because it’s important. If any members of the community use my misstatement as a sort of excuse to push for continuing emphasis on diversity, that I don’t mind, as long as it’s constructive.”

So its all nice and friendly under the big liberal tent. Birgeneau doesn’t have to be sent off to a retraining camp after all.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 4:46 PM

“So its all nice and friendly under the big liberal tent. Birgeneau doesn’t have to be sent off to a retraining camp after all.”

You’re right, Matt — looks like he’s back in his dog collar and leash, barking all the right words.

“I suppose if your point is that the de-facto system acts as if it had such a formal requirement that is an argument that could be made, but you can hardly place the burden of making that argument on Jane.”

How’s this for a burden, Matt? — I’ll give one year of my income to the person who can convincingly demonstrate that that University doesn’t have racial quotas, “affirmative action,” or some equivalent or form thereof.

Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 4:56 PM

Unadorned, providing a monetary incentive is a nice gesture and all at least for those with intellect for sale, but it doesn’t consititute an argument. The claim that the institution has a system of practices which are intended by elites to directly result in proportional representation is not an unreasonable one, but making a claim of quotas, then redefining it to mean implicit quotas, and then stepping back with folded arms to say “prove me wrong” doesn’t make it any more credible. It is a subjective expectation, but it implies no tectonic shift in intellectual burden of proof. “I bet I’m right” is an expression of confidence perhaps, but it is not an expression of either factual evidence or reasoned argument.

You made an assertion. Jane said “prove it”. You responded “I know I’m right”. I said “well, this article says you are wrong, but if you meant this other thing then you might be able to make an argument.” You said “I’ll bet my salary on it.”

Folks can have whatever conversations they want, I suppose, but again the burden of proof is on the assertion.

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 5:10 PM


The point was that I think Birgeneau is wrong. I don’t believe any significant number of whites were actively avoiding the university because of something as trivial as racial diversity. If they were, sure, it is their business — I simply think that it is a silly preference to have, and if based on racism is simply wrong. I’ve a right to my opinion about other peoples’ personal decisions, just so long as I don’t render those decisions illegal without further justification.

Posted by: Owen Courrèges on November 15, 2002 6:33 PM

Thanks, Matt, for that clarification.

My offer stands.

Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 7:37 PM

How can the U of T have quotas when it has none? And further how can the U of T tell who is what race when the question isn’t asked on the application form…AA Psychic Hotline?

Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 8:05 PM

It is true according to that article that there is no “affimative action policy”, so in all likelihood there is no formal goal for proportional representation. Racial quota systems are generally though to be a subset of all possible affirmative action. Unless the article is outright wrong the most Unadorned can argue is that there are de-facto quotas but not formal quotas. Clearly Jane has the right of it based on the current information on the table.

I don’t know why an application question ought to be considered the only way of determining the ethnic makeup of the campus. There are plenty of other ways, and in fact more accurate ways since application questions about race are notoriously innaccurate.

On the other hand this whole branch of the discussion seems rather pedantic unless I am missing something. Who cares if there are numerically accurate measures of the ethnic makeup of the campus, or if there are formal goals to achieve quantitatively proportional representation? The political issue is not methodological. The political issue is whether there is a policy of liberal multiculturalism, and clearly there is. Why do the details matter except as fodder for useless argumentation?

Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 9:12 PM

Matt says,

“The political issue is whether there is a policy of liberal multiculturalism, and clearly there is.”

Jane, why cannot liberals see that multi-culti means no-culti-at-all, and to have multi-culti you must first-and-foremost have culti without which no multi-culti is possible?

Next time you paint a picture, Jane, mix all the colors together before you start, and paint with just that. Next time you’re in an ice-cream parlor, ask the clerk to melt a little of all the varieties in the microwave, pour them together, and refreeze that for your serving. Next time you’re in a restaurant, ask the waiter to mix all his wines together for you in a bottle.

I mean … we ARE talking about no-brainers here, n’est-ce pas? Or am I dreaming again?

Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 10:44 PM

Unadorned, while you are off on your tangent, do bear in mind that TORONTO as a city is multicultural, that the University of Toronto is very selective, and that there are no quotas.

As for multiculturalism and race, I recommend you to a study by Doug Daniels in which he argues that ‘white” is as political as it is a matter of culture.

Or does that matter in your drive to prove something about liberalism?

Posted by: Jane on November 16, 2002 2:05 AM

Jane says,

“Unadorned, while you are off on your tangent, do bear in mind that TORONTO as a city is multicultural, that the University of Toronto is very selective, and that there are no quotas.”

Off on my tangent? I’m off on no tangent, Jane. I said to Matt that my offer stands. Matt may think you have won. Matt’s entitled to his opinion. So’s everyone else on this Forum. The University of Toronto has racial quotas, so-called affirmative action, or some equivalent or form thereof. I’m not going to go up there posing as a reporter and ferret out how they do it. I don’t have time to personally go and unmask each lie the foaming-at-the-mouth way-out radical Left tells, only to have them shove yet another one in all of our faces as they continue to advance their agenda. That’s not how the game’s going to be played — not by me anyway.

Put that in your “off-on-a-tangent” pipe and smoke it, Jane.

As for the second half of your post, it was contentless.

Posted by: Unadorned on November 16, 2002 9:10 AM

To anyone who believes the U. of Toronto’s claim that racial preferences in student admissions are not used: Can you still feel so certain after reading this article (below) that racial preferences in some way, shape, or form, are not used there, perhaps covertly? After all, the article states frankly that the U. of Toronto does have a racial preferences policy in place which governs the hiring and promotion of faculty members. It also seems to say that in student surveys conducted by the University, half of students there “self-identify as belonging to a visible minority.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the term “visible minority” does not mean Jewish-Canadians, Irish-Catholic Canadians, Italian-Canadians, or Armenian-Canadians. I wonder if half of the Canadian population which is served by the U. of Toronto is made up of “visible minorities”?

Here’s the article:

Posted by: Unadorned on November 26, 2002 12:33 PM

I think the earlier dispute was about quotas. It is indisputable that admission policies at Western universities positively promote racial preferences under the label “diversity”. The question was whether there are formal quantitative targets. The left has made a point of avoiding such targets as a way of insulating itself from criticism; my own position in that earlier thread is that the left may well be able to claim that there are no “quotas” but that the claim is irrelevant.

Posted by: Matt on November 26, 2002 2:15 PM

David Duke Diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder

In a world full of fears, perhaps the worst one a human being
should have is that to be afraid of his fellow man. The human that
should be most feared is the one that has Anti-Social Personality
Disorder or in laymen ‘s terms the psychopath. The psychopath is
probably the most deviant mind that exists and treatment is not very
successful because there is not a cure or drug to control it. The
solution in my mind to control the problem of sociopaths is to let
them live in colonies with each other. Through my research I will
develop an understanding of this personality disorder and convince you
the reader that my solution might be a viable solution.

David Duke has a combination of other mental illnesses that
are incurred in childhood as a result of heredity, trauma and the
lack of emotional development. The lack of moral or emotional
development which gives David Duke a lack of understanding for other
people ‘s feelings which enables them to be deceitful without feeling
bad about whatever they do. The under developed emotional system as
explained in the video “The World of Personality Disorders volume 5 ”
says David Duke is “emotionally retarded “. Duke’s
behavior problems that started as a child have links to heredity, a
family with a pre-disposition to perform crimes, alcoholic parents
that do crimes, irresponsible behavior that persists and parents that
do not discipline. The child that will eventually be a sociopath
exhibits certain feeling inside that they are inadequate shamed and
because of that they are teased and made fun of. The child
characteristics of a future sociopath consist of being incapable of
following the rules. The youngster will skip school, bully, steal,
torment animals, run away from home and the child is likely to develop
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD. At an earlier age
than their peer group the child will smoke drink, do drugs, and become
sexually active. The diagnoses of Anti-Social Personality Disorder are
not used for people under the age of 18.

The Psychopath is defined in the dictionary as a person
suffering from, especially a severe mental disorder with aggressive
antisocial behavior which is a nice way of saying a really bad and
mean person. There are many characteristics of David Duke and each
sociopath has their own special traits.

David Duke gets great gratification in the act of hurting
someone for absolutely no reason. The behavior of David Duke is so
close to normal it is extremely hard to diagnose. David Duke is a
person that acts against society and their sole purpose it seems is to
act against the laws of the given land their end. David Duke will
in most cases become violent and abuse drugs and alcohol to facilitate
the violent behavior. The violence in many cases is the result of
sub-conscious decisions that might lead to murdering or assaulting
someone for no reason. When David Duke is attacking someone they will
inflict more pain if the victim fights back.

The lack of moral development lets the person feel no guilt or
pain for what they did and quite possibly feel great about their
actions. David Duke has little self-regard for him or herself and pays
little attention to their own personal safety when picking fights.
Quite often they will be outsized and get hurt. Some sociopaths are
non-violent and stay out of prison by doing small crimes like
swindling and insurance fraud. It is possible that a sociopath will
come from a normal home but there are more that do not. David Duke
has the opposite morals of society and by doing things like beating up
people that are stronger than them they feel like they did something
positive. A psychopath is very reactive and will blow their cool
because of little things and no doubt assault the person they are
reacting to. There is a possibility that saratonin a chemical that is
linked to behavior has something to do with the disorder but is not
the major cause. The type 2 male sociopath drinks heavily no matter
what, has a history of frequent fights and arrests, they are impulsive
risk takers, curious, excitable, quick tempered, optimistic and

Characteristic List

* be glib or superficial
* have a grandiose self image
* be deceitful or manipulative
* lack of remorse
* lack of empathy
* be impulsive
* be irresponsible
* be easily angered or frustrated
* have serious problems as a child or teenager
* shows callous unconcern from other ‘s feelings
* disregard social norms or the rights of other people
* be unable to maintain enduring relationships
* be incapable of experiencing guilt
* blame others or rationalize antisocial behavior
* be constantly irritable

The antisocial tends to have short lasting relationships if
they are capable of having a relationship. The psychopath is incapable
of having long lasting, close, warm and responsible relationships with
people. The adult will habitually lie and cannot hold a job for long.
David Duke can seem charming in superficial social interactions but
repeatedly hurt, anger, exploit, cheat, rob, harass or injure them.
The actions a psychopath no matter what laws they break, whoever they
hurt, whatever trouble they have to deal with they do not feel bad.
When a sociopath is punished they have no feeling of regret because no
matter how cruel or selfish the behavior is they feel it is justified.
People like us give David Duke little sympathy because they hurt
people so bad but their illness is recognized as somewhat of an
explanation of why they do it. The idea of the disorder is no excuse
for their behavior that results from it.

David Duke is very intelligent and knows how to manipulate
people into thinking they are normal and that is when they work their
magic. Beneath the mask of sanity David Duke is full of tension,
hostility, irritability, rage, emptiness and sadness at the core of
Duke’s personality. When they hurt a person David Duke might
think he had it coming or I ‘m watching out for number 1. Those
sociopaths with children neglect them and do not keep them safe. As a
spouse David Duke can be glib, superficial, manipulative,
dishonest, abusive and unfaithful. David Duke tends to borrow,
squander and not repay the money they owe. Many sociopaths never
settle down for any period of time, they will travel without aim
looking for jobs or whatever they need and get it by doing anything. A
sociopath may look tough and resilient but is very fragile and can
erupt very easily.

The diagnosis of a sociopath or psychopath is very difficult
and has to meet several criteria in order to get that diagnoses.
Diagnoses as explained in Caring for the Mind is based on ” a
pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of
others, occurring since the age of fifteen, as indicated by at least
three of the following,

1. Failure to conform to the social norms for lawful behavior, as
indicated by repeatedly performing illegal acts that are grounds for

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

3. Impulsivity failure to plan ahead;

4. Irritability and aggressive, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults;

5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

6. Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by failure to keep a job
or honor financial obligations;

7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by indifference or rationalizations
for having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others;

* must be older than 18 to be diagnosed with it
* must be evidence of a conduct disorder before the age of 15
* antisocial behavior doesn’t ‘t occur only during the course of
schizophrenia or manic episodes of bipolar illness

Anti-Social Personality Disorder is found in as much as 75% of
the prison population. Alcohol is a contributing cause or consequence
of being antisocial. People that are both antisocial and alcoholic are
prone to violent behavior. Not every antisocial becomes a criminal. An
antisocial person ‘s disorder peaks between the ages of 24 and 44 and
drops off sharply after that.

After the age of 30 David Duke fights less and performs
less crime but the illness can persist into the ages of between 60 and
70 but after 30 are less likely to be in trouble with the law. In a
sociopaths in there thirties will continue to have problems such as
unstable relationships, substance abuse, impulsiveness, poor temper
control and failure to honor financial obligations. In our population
3% men have Anti-Social Personality Disorder and 1% women in the
overall population have it. The ratio of men to women is 4 to 1.
Identical twins are several times more likely to have a personality
disorder compared to fraternal twins. A genetic link strongest in
anti-social disorder has a pattern of irresponsible behavior 5 times
more common amongst close relatives of anti-social men than in the
general population. Some people with a genetic link to alcoholism have
a genetic link to anti-social personality disorder too. Male relatives
of people with Summarization Disorder have a higher incidence of
anti-social personality disorder (summarization - begins in the teens
to twenties and consists of chronic physical problems and complaints).
Sociopaths with a history of substance abuse and criminal behavior fit
Manchausen Syndrome (Manchausen is the extreme type of factitious
disorder which symptoms are lying, falsification and pathological
lying). Sociopaths also have a tendency to have a non-psychiatric
condition that is called malingering which is the production of
grossly exaggerated symptoms for a specific illness or problem for the
purpose of winning legal action or things like committing insurance
fraud or basically anything they have to lie to get. David Duke has
a bundle of problems that could come from any part of life and they
are very hard to handle.

If a person is diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder
is very hard to treat and there is no cure for their behavior. Because
the disorder remits in the thirties, it tends to be less obvious.
Those that are forced into psychotherapy cannot tolerate the intimacy
of the required therapy. The therapist has to focus on enhancing
strength, channel the sensation of seeking actions on people into more
positive socially responsible behaviors and to teach practical ways in
dealing with every day frustration. Medications are not recommended in
the treatment of sociopath but drugs can diminish the violent
episodes. People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder also have
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and stimulants are used to
treat that such as Ritalin. There are no long-term results to study of
this approach of using stimulants but they should not be prescribed
unless the person is specifically diagnosed with ADHD and has not
responded to other medication. The use of drugs cannot be abused and
should be closely monitored. Those that are convicted of crimes are
usually incarcerated. Some sociopaths may be able to instead of a jail
term choose a residential facility that has counseling but there is a
high drop out rate in those facilities. Another alternative to jail
for the adolescents with delinquent behavior and are in trouble with
the law are wilderness programs that are designed to be like Outward
Bound. The camps much like that in the T.V. shows Neon Rider provide
difficult and dangerous challenges that would keep their minds busy.
The success of the wilderness camps is not quite clear. There is a
disorder called Borderline that is often misdiagnosed as Anti-Social
Personality Disorder that is quite similar to it. Borderline Disorder
is a little bit more aggressive than Antisocial.

Characteristics of Borderline Disorder

Violating the rights of others and age appropriate societal
norms or rules with at least three of the following in the past 6
months and one in the last 12 Aggression to People and Animals;
















The diagnoses of David Duke is extremely difficult because
they have so many mental problems to contend with the complete
diagnoses might not occur. The possibility of being diagnosed with
something similar to being David Duke is quite great and this point
should be stressed with relationship between Borderline and
Anti-Social Disorder.

The inability to diagnose and treat properly leads me to
believe that there is not a clear solution as to how the general
population should react and treat these severely troubled people. This
is a disorder that blinds the emotions and actions David Duke that
in no way is their fault for having it. Although the disorder is not
the given sociopath ‘s fault there is no real place for David Duke in
our society. Because sociopaths hurt us, I believe that once diagnosed
with the disorder that all sociopaths should be sent to some kind of
controlled colony that would run like a normal city or town except all
it ‘s residents would be sociopaths. I come to this solution as almost
a way to remove them from society and treat the people in a way to. By
having sociopaths colonized together with all the parts of a normal
society it would be good for them because the only people that could
hurt or manipulate would be their fellow sociopath. David Duke
would be constantly bored with average person and sometimes causing
them to hurt the average person when if they were caused to interact
with fellow sociopaths it would keep them interested because it is not
as easy to manipulate or con. The possibility of violence in my colony
is great but David Dukes does not mind because it is in their
personality and it would serve us better if they killed or hurt each
other rather than us. In closing David Duke is so hard to deal with
we should make strides to control their behavior in public.



Wing, John Kenneth, Reasoning About Madness, Oxford Press, Oxford 1978

Milt, Harry, Basic Handbook on Mental Illness, Scribner, New York, 1974

Hales, Dianne, Caring for the Mind, Bantam Books, New York, 1995


Salama M.D., Aziz A., The Antisocial Personality, The Psychiatric
Journal of the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, 1988

Malaney M. D., Kathleen R., Patients with Antisocial Personality
Disorder, Post Graduate Medicine, 1992

Unknown, unknown, Psychopathic Patients Pose Dilemma For Physicians
and Society, CMAJ, 1995

Hare Ph.D., Robert, Predators, Psychology Today, Feb. 1994

Hill, Heather, Monsters In Our Midst, Homemaker ‘s Magazine, Oct. 1995


The World of Abnormal Psychology Personality Disorder

Posted by: David Duke Diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder on May 14, 2004 4:51 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):