Staged College Hate Crimes:
Eugene links below to the story of the fake hate crime at Princeton. Is it just me, or are staged hate crimes on college campuses unusually common? My own university, George Washington, recently had such an episode. Swastikas were found on dorm room door of a Jewish student,and it turned out most and probably all of the swastikas were put there by the resident herself. I'm not sure what it means, and I don't think it's something new, but it sure is strange.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Can You Get Away With Committing a Hate Crime Hoax?
  2. Staged College Hate Crimes:
My guess is it's people who are feeling low because the world isn't sufficiently acknowledging their victimhood.
12.17.2007 2:20pm
arthur (mail):
"are staged hate crimes on college campuses unusually common?"

Nope. If they are common, they aren't unusual. If they are unusual, they aren't common.
12.17.2007 2:24pm
12.17.2007 2:28pm

I believe that's incorrect, because I am comparing the frequency of hate crimes in one setting (college campuses) to the frequency of hate crimes generally in the world at large. The word "common" refers to the frequency on college campuses, and the word "unusually" is relative to frequency relative to the world at large. So just like you can say "this year I ate sushi unusually often," without creating a contradiction, so you can say "staged hate crimes on campuses are unusually common."

Of course, perhaps my usage is confusing to readers, and if so I would be happy to change it. But I don't think it's incorrect.
12.17.2007 2:32pm
Federal Dog:
I never -- ever -- take such allegations at face value. I really cannot recall the last time they were real. It is invariably a stunt designed to give some self-anointed victim group a chance to engage in a display of righteous outrage and make a public spectacle of its own perceived moral superiority.

Schools actively foster the activity. The kids are taught to be alert to any opportunity to make a show of themselves, and faculty who never grew up play a co-starring role.

It's a sick, but completely predictable, pathology readily indulged in by needy, immature psychologies.
12.17.2007 2:33pm
I remember an incident at Emory that made the front page of the New York Times in 1995.

Where two black students found a note written on their door white board which said "You n__s never sleep" (unedited, of course). We then had scathing articles written about how backward and intolerant the white southern males must be at Emory, campus demonstrations disrupting classes, promises by administrators to revamp the freshmen orientation program to impose stronger "diversity training," and the campus police fingerprinting and taking handwriting samples from the men on the victim's dorm floor.

Eventually, the police handwriting investigation worked, as they caught the perpetrator: another black student on the hall. He claimed that he hadn't come forward voluntarily to admit his 'unintended slur' because, he claimed, the campus outrage got so out of control that he felt all the demonstrators would be mad at him for wasting their time. Of course, this admission never made the papers, and the administrators went forward with the diversity training anyway, and the protesters remained self-satisfied that they had "raised awareness of racism" - even though the racism in question was fictional.

There were several similar events while I was in school, but usually involving 'false swastikas'. I would say that in the isolated sphere of college campuses, 'fake hate crimes' greatly outnumber 'real hate crimes'.
12.17.2007 2:42pm
Milhouse (www):
In theory I can explain why they might be more common on campus than off it: people on campus get caught up in their little PC worlds and lose sight of reality. But that's just speculation on my part. In fact I'm not convinced that fake "hate crimes" are more common on campus than off it; nowadays whenever I hear of such an incident I assume it to be fake pending further evidence. The more spectacular the alleged incident the more likely I think it to be a hoax. OTOH some incidents ring true to me precisely because it seems that if someone were going to fake them they'd have faked them better.
12.17.2007 2:47pm
Houston Lawyer:
We know it's fake once the college starts covering up the facts to protect someone's privacy. We need to make sure that this guy is punished just as hard as the others who staged fake hate crimes.
12.17.2007 2:53pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
Eugene, how common are entirely unprovoked assaults targeting conservatives on college campuses? I don't think I have ever heard of such a thing.

I have. It was big news on the Univ of Mich campus last year. Of course, that was fake too:

Initial Story.

follow up.

For the unacquainted, I present Justin Zatkoff, executive director of the Michigan Federation of College Republicans, and a fine piece of work. Gives one confidence in the next generation, no?
12.17.2007 2:58pm
Most mid-level bad behavior seems to be more common on college campuses than elsewhere. Trivial stuff happens everywhere, and REALLY serious mayhem only seems to hit colleges on occasion, but colleges seem to excel at moderately destructive stupidity. Why should this be any different?
12.17.2007 3:01pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
Wooga:I would say that in the isolated sphere of college campuses, 'fake hate crimes' greatly outnumber 'real hate crimes'.

You can say that, but until you have something to back it up other than some vague "gut" feeling you're just blowing hot air.
12.17.2007 3:04pm
I second the remarks about victimhood as a status symbol on college campuses. I recall a political science class at my college in which all opinions were customarily prefaced with a claim of victimhood; the opinions were then analyzed not according to content, but according to who's claim was more compelling.
12.17.2007 3:13pm
rarango (mail):
data on college hate crimes here
12.17.2007 3:21pm
Conrad J:
When I was in law school there was one incident every year of an anonymous "attack" on one minority group or another. It was interesting that the anonymous attack happened in the law school, where every student is hyper-PC, and not the undergraduate college,where there was the greatest possibility of a bigoted or reactionary student.
12.17.2007 3:22pm
Milhouse (www):
Houston Lawyer:
We need to make sure that this guy is punished just as hard as the others who staged fake hate crimes.
You mean not at all?
12.17.2007 3:24pm
Is it just me, or are staged hate crimes on college campuses unusually common?

I'm tempted to say "it's just you," but then I'd be stepping into the fact-free zone too, except from the other end.
12.17.2007 3:27pm
Dan Weber (www):
Didn't George Washington U. also have a case around 1990 where a rape activist thought not enough attention was being paid to the rape problem on campus? So she called the paper pretending to be a cop, telling them that a rapist was on the loose. And gave a physical description, in a way that would later make Susan Smith proud, of a large black man as the rapist.

It's been so long that the details are hazy. Is there a Wikipedia article about that incident?
12.17.2007 3:27pm
Houston Lawyer:

Of course
12.17.2007 3:41pm
The only way to come close to answering the question without resorting to anecdotes (like mine) would be to look at hate crimes allegations where the investigation actually identified the likely perpetrator. Then, figure out what percentage where fakes versus real haters. The citattions provided by rarango don't provide that breakdown.

However, I can tell you that while I was in college, there were ZERO reported hate crimes on my campus where the perpetrator was identified as anything but a faker (and a half dozen or so fakers).
12.17.2007 3:45pm
Correction to my above post: I vaguely recall one anti-gay incident that held up under scrutiny.
12.17.2007 3:46pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
Is it just me, or are staged hate crimes on college campuses unusually common?

That rather begs the question of how common you would consider to be usual. (c:

Let's review:

There are very few reported "hate crimes" committed against white male conservatives. Of those (my sample size is two at this point) most (well...all, actually) were staged.

There are many reported hate crimes against minorities. A few have been exposed as hoaxes, but that's small in comparison to the number reported. By analogy, yes, there are plenty of false fire alarms, but that doesn't mean that there are no fires.

BTW, a hoax-event is much more likely to show up on the media's radar than a "real" event; the whole point of a hoax is to get attention, while "real" events are often handled quietly at the request of the victim. This skews the sample - you're more likely to hear about a hoax event in the first place and once it's exposed as a hoax it's even more newsworthy (man bites dog, etc.).
12.17.2007 3:50pm
vaduz (mail):
a hoax-event is much more likely to show up on the media's radar than a "real" event

Uh, Clem, when the media realizes its a hoax, that is when it conveniently decides a celiberity divorce is more newsworthy. The Duke rape case is the best example. The evil white preppies and poor black victim storyline is what the media dreams of. When it turned out to be bs, they walked away. There was some attention to the rogue prosecutor, but not an iota of coverage on Crystal Magnum.
12.17.2007 4:00pm
Politically motivated crimes won't appear as "hate crimes" because the Clery act defines "hate crimes" as "A crime that manifests evidence that the victim was intentionally selected because of the perpetrator's bias. The applicable categories of bias are: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin and disability." Political ideology, unless closely tied with identity politics, won't enter into it.

As for a bona fide assault by a liberal against conservative students, see here.
12.17.2007 4:03pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Re: I'm not sure what it means, and I don't think it's something new, but it sure is strange.

Um... it means that being a victim of anything (or, even better, the grieving friend of a victim) is trendy? I feel pretty confident that's what it means. Maybe I shouldn't.
12.17.2007 4:03pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
The Duke rape case is the best example.

Really? I barely heard anything about it until Nifong started self-destructing.

Granted, my media consumption habits are not indicative of the media as a whole, (For instance, I have no earthly idea what Crystal Magnum might be.) but it seemed that the coverage increased as the prosecutor's case fell apart. Of course, now that the story has run it's course the mainstream media isn't still beating it like a dead horse everyday.
12.17.2007 4:11pm
Dan Weber (www):
Fake rape case details here:

NY Times

Note that this was a serious blow to race relations on campus. You can read the article for quotes from the black student groups on campus, and I can't really fault them for being pissed off.
12.17.2007 4:11pm
WHOI Jacket:
You missed Nancy Grace and numerous Scoop Jackson columns on ESPN.

You are better off for it.
12.17.2007 4:14pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
Politically motivated crimes won't appear as "hate crimes" because the Clery act defines "hate crimes"

Good point.
12.17.2007 4:23pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
You missed Nancy Grace and numerous Scoop Jackson columns on ESPN.

Actually, I haven't missed them at all. (c:
12.17.2007 4:31pm
Mike& (mail):
12.17.2007 4:40pm
While I have doubts that "hate crimes" or "hate crime hoaxes" occur with greater frequency on campus or off, the news media has a marked tendency to report allegations of "hate crimes" and ignore contrary facts. See, e.g., MEDIA MYTHS ABOUT THE JENA 6 (Oct. 24, 2006),

Unless you check the back pages, it's unlikely that you know that the lead Jena 6 defendant pled guilty after the case was turned over to the juvenile court.

Perhaps because of the greater number of student organizations, school papers, TV and radio stations, "hate crimes" on college campuses are both more likely to be reported, and more thoroughly investigated, so that "hate crime hoaxes" are more often exposed. I doubt there are many professional reporters, or commercial news organizations, that, after first reporting a "hate crime" with great bluster, are, after an hoax is exposed, willing to do an Emily Latilla and say "Oh. That's very different. Never mind."
12.17.2007 5:07pm
Loren (mail) (www):
While I was a student at the University of Georgia, an RA in a nearby dorm reported multiple false hate crimes, and set his own door on fire several times as part of the ruse. It made national news for a bit, up until it was discovered that he'd done it to himself.

He was eventually sentenced to three years' probation, and I believe he was banned from campus housing.
12.17.2007 5:23pm
I'm inclined to say this is college students doing stupid things to get attention and people are reading way too much into this. I'm no fan of postmodern gender and race theories, but they're not to blame for college students pulling lame stunts.
12.17.2007 5:43pm
Mike& (mail):
As to why? The answer is pretty simple: It's a great way to get a lot of attention; and if it blows up in your face, you almost certainly will not face any consequences. It's the same thing with rape cases, too. A false victim goes to trial, and if she loses, she loses nothing. If a falsely-accused defendant goes to trial and loses, he goes to prison and registers as a sex offender - for life.

If people who fakes hate crimes faced prison time, we would have fewer people crying wolf. But as it is now, the reward is great, and the risks are minimal. (I suspect there is a term in economics for such a situation.)

The more interesting question is what pathology causes people to seek this attention? I suspect it's some need for excessive attention; but I am no psychologist and can only guess.

I also suspect hate crime hoaxes will increase with the rise of the "MySpace Generation." These kids have some deep-seated need for attention (why? again; I don't know). And they will find a way to get that attention.
12.17.2007 5:47pm
r4d20 (mail):
Staged hate-crimes on campus used to be common just for the most knee-jerk PC liberals. Since today's "Conservatives" have pretty much just copied the playbook of the worst of the knee-jerk PC liberals, they are now going to be common for everybody.

There was a time where Conservatives condemned the cult of "victimization". Now they are campaigning to run it.
12.17.2007 5:58pm
r4d20 (mail):
The level of Cognitive dissonance required by todays movement conservatives is staggering. One must simultaneously believe that

1) Liberals are dirty, pot smoking, hippy wimps and cowards who are afraid to fight and want the government to save them from being victimized unlike brave and manly conservatives who can take care of themselves without the help of the government.


2) Conservatives are in constant peril of being attacked by hyper-aggressive liberals filled with BDS-driven rage and, as historically oppressed and victimized group, need institutional (or even government) protection.

What we have are two school of winy losers each trying to out-victim the other.
12.17.2007 6:07pm
George Weiss (mail):

sad but true
12.17.2007 6:20pm

Not a problem, since different members of the 'same' movement can believe astoundingly different things; consider the Democrats in 1958, for instance, or the Republicans today.

You're probably right when you say "What we have are two school of w[h]iny losers each trying to out-victim the other." The sad thing is they'll likely succeed.
12.17.2007 6:33pm
In large enough numbers, even the lowly Chihuahua can be a menace when rabid.
12.17.2007 6:51pm
I definitely can understand why liberals would invent fake so-called "hate crimes." It's in their blood that America is sexist, racist, bigoted, etc. When reality fails to live up to their expectations (as is usually does), the more extremist ones have to invent an incident in order to rally the troops, have teach-ins, protests, and to spread the revolution. Etc.

I don't know why any conservative would do something like that. I think that the staged Princeton attack speaks more to the irrational nature of the individual making the false claim. Whereas liberals have an entire ideology invested in making sure that "hate crimes" occur on a regular basis, a conservative has no need of that.
12.17.2007 7:22pm
In 2004 at the Claremont Colleges we had an accidental hate crime — if you are a pyro, learn to avoid objects with high symbolic value — followed by a fake hate crime where a car was vandalized and numerous slurs spray painted on it.

All five campuses shut down in fear and anger, and held a giant rally. Then we found out the victim, a visiting prof, had done it herself. All the people who had proclaimed that an elaborately planned hate crime was unsurprising in such a racist hellhole notably declined to eat their words. Instead they published a lengthy timeline of hate crimes at the campuses, listing every reported incident, but cleverly neglecting to mention that every major incident on the list had later turned out to be a hoax.
12.17.2007 8:14pm
LM (mail):

Gee, why would a healthy conservative ever act out like that? Could the answer possibly be in disgusting smears of liberals like the one in your comment? I mean, who wouldn't want to turn the tables on such pathologically self-deluding, unpatriotic whiners, the worst of whom feed their hatred of America by punishing innocent, decent people for their own frustrated expectations of persecution? I'm a liberal, and I may bitch-slap myself just for reading that. And if this crap is actually "in their blood" shouldn't they be grateful that just the odd kook occasionally lets off a little steam by pointing the finger back at them, when we ought to be taking measures to protect our children from their disease? In fact, aren't we kidding ourselves with the whole GWOT? Isn't it a distraction we're using to postpone the inevitable need to deal with our ugliest, vilest, more dangerous enemy of all, THE LIBERAL?

Give me a break.
12.17.2007 8:56pm
Michael B (mail):
The most mendacious and malevolent staged hate crime on the face of the planet is reflected in L'affaire al-Durah, in the Al-Durah Affair, and the MSM, once again, is asleep at the wheel. Profoundly and blissfully asleep; the reality doesn't fit the script.
12.17.2007 9:07pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Yay! Here come the meaningless-by-virtue-of-broad-labeling rants against conservatives and liberals!

Just what I look for in a comment thread.
12.17.2007 9:11pm

This is the first so-called "hate crime" I've ever heard of perpetuated by someone calling himself a conservative. Every other fake "hate crime" has been done by a liberal. You do the math.
12.17.2007 9:25pm
Zombie Richard Feynman (mail) (www):
I say the only solution is to overgeneralize both conservatives AND liberals!

One side has all the sick people, and one doesn't...

Thus, since all previous hate crime hoaxes have been perpetrated by liberals, this guy must be a liberal

undercover, sent to hurt to conservatives.

Free Republic agrees!
12.17.2007 10:51pm
LM (mail):

Hat's off for the economy of such a short comment that's wrong in so many ways. You want me to do the math? First of all, even assuming that the number of incidents you've heard of has any relationship to the actual number that occurred, how many of the other type, the "normal liberal" fake reports have you heard of? And no just assuming that a fake victim is liberal because he or she is African-American, or a woman, or gay, or disabled, or Jewish, or Palestinian, or a child-molesting welfare recipient. I recently heard that Whoopie Goldberg was complaining about a favorite conservative object of much whining, the so-called "death tax." And she fits into I don't know how many of those other categories. So, after you figure out how many of the predictable liberal fake hate crimes you've heard of, why don't you do the math and get back to me. Because I don't think there's any math you can do that will shed any informative light on either the question you tried to answer or the one I actually asked. But I am here, ready to be dazzled and persuaded. I'm just not holding my breath.
12.17.2007 11:41pm
bigchris1313 (mail):

All five campuses shut down in fear and anger, and held a giant rally. Then we found out the victim, a visiting prof, had done it herself.

As an undergrad at Claremont cramming for finals right now, I can attest that to this very day, the name Kerri Dunn remains immortalized. In a very bad way, of course.

12.18.2007 12:11am
bigchris1313 (mail):
I thought I added a link. Hmm.
12.18.2007 12:23am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Fake hate crimes are just cries for help, from people who hate themselves.
12.18.2007 12:40am
Big Bill (mail):
When swastikas are drawn by a member of a protected class, they are "cries for help". When done by a member of the dominant hegemonic class they are "hate crimes". Easy to remember. Simple rule. Just check the color of the perpetrators skin and their ethnicity and you can tell if a crime occurred.

For example: Kindergarten teachers fake a lynching of black children to petrify them and give them a visceral fear of lynching. They lift them up and stick their heads in a noose hanging from a tree. See here for a picture:

Now follow the rule above and check the skin color: black. Hence the teachers were not fired, nor was there a march or demonstration.

Simple rule. Works every time.
12.18.2007 5:48am
I was on my law school student senate and it happened a few times then.

There would be the terrible crime, a flyer or a drawing on a dorm room board, noose, or once a spray painting.

Then the breathless plans for protest marches and such from the undergrad senate.

Then if everything would get dropped before or after the march we (in student government) would ask and it would be whispered that the victim got caught or confessed.

Well before my time the law school was going to fail a black student, and his dorm room burned in a total hate crime. The U police were going to give it a pass but the city fire investigator found out the victim had purchased gas at a nearby station right before, so the whole thing went away. The outcome was that they just do not fail students any more, and they brought in the MAP program where black and hispanic students get a pre-test and one on one with the prof in each class so they can do well on the real test.
12.18.2007 9:09am
It's clear now that Princeton must now fire their lacrosse coach.

In addition, FantasiaWHT seems to me to have hit the nail on the head. (Puting aside offenders who are acting out of mental instability.)

The hegemonic ideology on campus at the present defines people as members of groups; and groups are taken to be virtuous only to the extent that they are viewed as vicitms.

This definition is used in apportioning goodies: research and travel grants, "centers," faculty lines, and on and on. As a result, the various constituent groups within a university have a significant incentive to play-up their victim status: They are often guaranteed a reward for doing so.

I don't know what this fellow at Princeton was trying to do. Perhaps he is simply unbalanced. But puting him to one side, there are certainly conservatives on campuses who think that making a big deal of their "otherness" is a way to gain leverage. Understandable, I suppose, since they have seen it happen with other gropus. But in addition a violation of their (assumed) priciples, and also a hopeless quest.
12.18.2007 9:38am
For all those who claim that fake hate crimes go unpunished: at least Kerri Dunn went to prison.
12.18.2007 10:58am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Sparky. I thought that Ms. Dunn went to prison for filing a false insurance claim. After vandalizing her car, she wanted it fixed on somebody else's dime.

Did she actually get convicted of false reporting or whatever it is in that jurisdiction?

If the former, she is not being punished for faking a hate crime, but merely for fraud.
12.18.2007 11:05am
NU 1L To-Be:

This happened my freshman year at Northwestern; guy got expelled....
12.18.2007 5:21pm
It's true, the prison term was for insurance fraud. However, she was also convicted of filing a false police report, a misdemeanor.
12.19.2007 11:11am
Just a Bill:
r4d20: "Since today's "Conservatives" have pretty much just copied the playbook of the worst of the knee-jerk PC liberals, [staged hate-crimes] are now going to be common for everybody."

Conservatives = tens of millions of people from across American society.

Nava's Hate Crime Hoax = one somewhat-disturbed individual acting, not merely alone, but against his fellow conservatives, who were suspicious from the start and who quickly helped to limit the damage and uncover the truth.

So I don't agree that "today's Conservatives" are implicated in Nava's Hoax, but I do agree and note with alarm that when you incentivize(?) a thing, you get more of it. I predict a growth industry in hate crime hoaxes until the incentives drop, the costs rise, and the general environment that valorizes weakness and failure comes to an end. Yeah, that may take a while.
12.19.2007 3:32pm
RowerinVa (mail):
Three largely separate points.

#1. In my admittedly limited experience (Dartmouth and UVA) they are not common, in the sense that they less than once per academic term, but they are very high profile when they do happen, and the higher the profile of the alleged campus hate crime incident the greater the chance that it will be exposed as a fraud. This last relationship perhaps is not surprising: a fraudulent "victim" is likely to be motivated by publicity, and more likely (all things being equal) than an average actual victim to seek major publicity, thus of the cases that receive great publicity, more of them likely will be fraudulent than would be the case with actual crimes.

#2. In my four years at Dartmouth there were three major incidents of false hate crimes (one by a Native American, one by an African American, and one by a woman studies student). The interesting question is, how does their frequency compare to actual hate-motivated crimes?, which I can't answer because I can't define the term "actual hate-motivated crimes." During the same time period, there were no actual crimes of violence or malicious graffiti (that were publicly reported, at any rate) perpetrated by caucasians or males against non-caucasians or females, that were reported as hate crimes. At Dartmouth there were, however, assaults, robberies, at least one well-publicized rape, and one double murder, with every combination of perpetrator and victim. In my three years at UVA there were many more actual crimes, partially because UVA is larger and partially because there was a significant problem at the time with town-versus-gown assaults. Any one of these crimes, particularly some of the violent rapes and the double murder (which involved a male student who brutally dismembered a woman (and her roommate)after she rejected their families' attempt to arrange their marriage) could conceivably have been designated a hate crime, since, from comments made during or immediately after, there was clear race- or gender-based animus involved. But they never received that label in the media at the time. At any rate, I can't answer the interesting question. I would like to see someone try.

3. After one of the false allegations at Dartmouth was exposed, I listened in at a rally by anti-hate forces (yes, the rally went on even after the fraud was exposed) and a speaker said to great applause that it didn't matter that the particular allegation was false: the false victim, who created false racist grafitti on his own door, was justified in creating the false grafitti and passing it off as true, because he knew that this racism existed in the community "although carefully hidden" and this was the best way of calling attention to it. The fraudster was a "hero," said the speaker, for exposing what the actual racists were attempting to cover up by not writing what they actually thought -- the racists were dishonest by not writing their racism openly, so the fraudster was justified in being dishonest by doing the writing for them. This drew cheers from the 150 or so people in attendance (a sizable crowd, but Dartmouth's student population at the time was about 4600). I thought this was a revealing comment. I wonder how many people who engage in such frauds rationalize it in this way.
12.19.2007 5:13pm
John87 (mail):
When I was at college I saw one of my friends who was about 3/4 Indian and 1/4 black write a long racist riff on his own door after a good night of drinking. About two weeks later, the entire school shut down for a day to contemplate the state of racism on campus, just because of this one incident.
12.20.2007 9:45am
Just a Bill:
RowerinVa: "After one of the false allegations at Dartmouth was exposed, I listened in at a rally by anti-hate forces (yes, the rally went on even after the fraud was exposed) and a speaker said to great applause that it didn't matter that the particular allegation was false: the false victim ... was justified..."

Well, there are two huge left-right differences right there: (1) Nava's own fellow conservatives, suspecting something fishy, quickly moved to quash any sort of rally, and (2) Nava was rebuked, not praised, for his actions. (source)

Left or right, every group has its occasional weirdoes. Now that the facts are out I am reasonably satisfied that the righty Anscombe folks handled their weirdo well -- much better than, e.g., the lefties at Dartmouth or, god forbid, Duke.
12.20.2007 1:54pm
Just a Bill:
Oh, and far from holding a triumphant damn-the-facts rally, on Monday the Anscombe folks -- including Nava -- held a sober anti-rally and post mortem in which Nava fessed up. Contrast this to the Duke Group of 88.
12.20.2007 2:12pm