In the aftermath of a social disaster

News & Observer ^ | 1/5/06 | Cathy Davidson

[Alia]

But, frankly, the big issue is probably the prior academic credentials necessary to be admitted in the first place. Otherwise those same people could go to NCSU or UNC.

You are right. Very right.... and about gpa.

Should we come up with the equivalent of the "snow show" for the "daytime" students? Nah. THAT might be racist.

You stated this very well. It's pretty much where my brain was circling too.

Back to the case.. I remember early on there was rumblings out of the Durham-ettes about not enough Blacks at Duke and no "wonder" these rich white boys just thought they could cock a snook...

I didn't read a single thing about GPA and admissions to Duke in response, in print, discussed, suggested, wondered about, etc. I'd wager the academic admissions process standards are far higher at Duke than at NCCCU.....But let that go unsaid as it might be considered RACIST to even bring up this factoid...

[Locomotive Breath]

Uh.. no wager necessary. The differential in admissions standards is a matter of public record.

[Ohioan from Florida]

And I got this answer out of asking what he'd heard rumbling in the area over Denita Smith's murder.

Have you learned anything more about Miss Smith's murder? I pray that the perpetrator(s) of this crime will be brought to justice speedily!

[Lancey Howard]

Oh I get it.

This imbecile, Cathy Davidson, is disappointed and humiliated by the turn of events in the malicious prosecution of the lacrosse players, and she is now embarrassed that she signed onto that sniffy, self-important "ad". So now, in order to convince people (and herself?) that, gee, the ad wasn't meant to imply anything about those lacrosse players, she's throwing out a whole lot of weasel words. It's all a big misunderstanding. See, the real problem is institutional racism and sexism and blah blah blah....

Yeah right.

[Alia]

Specifically? No. But all the data I've collected is churning in the back of my mind.

I pray that the perpetrator(s) of this crime will be brought to justice speedily!

I pray this, too. Because until it is solved, it serves as a 5-minute celebrity bump for any other lunatic wishing to do an "ego-glorification" trip and possibly murder another person.

[Alia]

Yep, it is. And of course, no reporter from the MSM would ever be so brave as to assert this "public record" in response to those taunting that Duke doesn't have enough "minorities" at the U.

[Locomotive Breath]

Well here's one English major that "gets it"

Recontextualizing the Argument

Yeah, sorry I'm doing consecutive posts on the lacrosse thing, but it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck and I'm fascinated. And extremely glad that I don't have to handle Brodhead's p.r., but that's another story.

So yesterday the first civil suit was filed against a prof accused of deliberately failing 2 lacrosse students in "retaliation." The fact that the university changed the students' grades after the semester means it might not look too good for the prof.

Then today I was treated to an extremely long-winded op-ed from one of the authors of an ad that appeared in the student newspaper at Duke after the party--signed by 88 Duke profs--that's full of weeping and lamentation about the fact that hey, the world isn't a very nice place.

The op-ed is, well, long. And manages to do the thing that only the rarest of op-eds can do: make everything worse. There's puling of the high-minded "We had no IDEA that we'd make things worse" variety:

The ad we signed explicitly was not addressed to the police investigation or the rape allegations. The ad focused on racial and gender attitudes all too evident in the weeks after March 13. It decried prejudice and inequality in the society at large. "It isn't just Duke, it isn't everybody, and it isn't just individuals making this disaster," the ad insisted."

There's the retreat to moral high ground of the "I'm a brave professor saving the world 'cause God knows no one else on the planet is aware of racism! Or sexism! Or that strippers can actually be hired--of either gender--pretty damn easily! And I'm gonna shoehorn every social cause I can think of in here, because I'm an english professor who wants you to know that a bunch of stupid drunk jocks are a METAPHOR for all this stuff!" :

We are in the midst of a social disaster where 18 percent of the American population lives below the poverty line and a disproportionate number of those are African-American. We live in the midst of a social disaster where 30 percent of our students do not graduate from high school (making the U.S. No. 17 in the world). We live in the midst of a social disaster where women's salaries for similar jobs are substantially less than men's (and, as of this year, starting to go down again, not up). We live in the midst of a social disaster where we do not have national health care or affordable childcare. And we live in a situation where a group of white athletes at a prominent university can get drunk and call out for a stripper the way they would a pizza.

And finally, the coup de grace - the "Now I'm going to name-call everyone who disagrees with what we did and paint them as mentally unstable, or worse--violent--or EVEN WORSE: REPUBLICANS, so that no one can actually address the argument itself without suffering the taint of my mischaracterization, plus it makes me seem even braver! In literary terms, that's what we call 'creating a foil!'" paragraph:

On the other hand, most of my e-mail comes from right-wing "blog hooligans." These hateful, ranting and sometimes even threatening folks don't care about Duke or the lacrosse players. Their aim is to make academics and liberals look ridiculous and uncaring. They deliberately misrepresent the faculty and manipulate the feelings of those who care about the lacrosse players in order to foster their own demagogic political agenda. They contribute to the problem, not to the solution.

Wow, bitter much? No one is making you look ridiculous. You're competent professionals, and I'm sure you're more than capable of accomplishing that all on your own.

See? I still have faith in the professoriate.

But why, why, WHY, is it always the English profs? Sigh.

http://www.bigarmwoman.com/archives/000957.html

[Alia]

Thank you -- reading that made my morning so much more bright. Yes, the author does get the entire Gang of 88 playup and playout. It was refreshing for me to see the author use the word "puling" in reference to the recent Gang of 88 article, as "puling and mewling" was as I saw it, too. And of course "creating a foil".

And why oh why is it always "English Professors". I've no doubts the authoress knows the why's of this too.

In the early 90s, in the colleges near me, Shakespeare was dropped as a course of study because ole' Shakespeare was deemed a racist white guy. Then, years later, Shakespeare was brought back, but with a spin. And along with the bringing back of Shakespearre came the inevitable mandatory readings of Barbara Kingsolver, etc. in English courses.

I give it to Kingsolver, hands down; she writes well. I've read all her works. But, she's an hysteric, activist for the left. Most all the required reading for pre-req courses is leftist. Why oh why is it always English Profs....

Required reading in a PreReq English class for one of my daughters was this.

We read it together, daughter and I....

[Alia]

A college student contacted me (years ago). Required English.. students were given a list of topics to write upon. At that time in CA, The California Civil Rights Initiaive (repealing preferences and quotas from public entities) was a major topic. However, the instructor mandated the students could ONLY use a specific website for data searching for their essays.

Every single last article on that SPECIFIC website was an activist "NO on the CCRI" article. No supportive document/article positions on the CCRI were at that website.

Why oh why... English Profs ....

[Pan_Yans Wife]

No woman deserves to be raped and any perpetrator should be prosecuted and sentenced within the stiff sentencing guidelines of the law. All victims have the responsibility to work within the system, being truthful to a fault, to see that justice is served.

And yet... while reading about this case I always go back to the beginning.

The lacrosse team should never have hired a stripper. Imagine how different their lives would be today.

And then I find myself saying that the stripper placed herself in a dangerous situation. This time she was lucky because we know her case had no basis in fact.

But, she could have been one of the countless victims of rape. Would she have had any responsibility in placing herself in such a compromising position?

If she had been my daughter I would have wanted to protect her and I would have wanted the young men prosecuted and found guilty.

AFTER that, I would have wanted to slap my daughter for the danger that she placed herself in. She would have been lucky not to have been victimized more and not killed.

Why is it that this victim wouldn't have been subjected to scrutiny based upon her own actions?

I wouldn't stoop so low as to call her an idiot. But she made decisions that defy reasoning. Only in realizing that her allegations are false do we see what game she was trying to play.

[Locomotive Breath]

Jan. 08, 2007: Why We Dont Have Any More Great University Presidents ...


... because the universities don't want them, that's why.

National Review
David Frum's Diary

From a NYT article on Harvard's search for a new president to replace Larry Summers:

"I think the tough thing for the corporation is they want someone like Derek Bok, who doesn’t cause any unnecessary sparks."

Exactly. Once universities sought out presidents who could write and speak. Today, they prefer experts at hiding and evasion. Hey - do you suppose Lee Bollinger is available?

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTAyZTgzMDNlZWZhOGQ4ODNhMTkxMWZkOTE5YjViN2M=

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/education/08harvard.html?ex=1168837200&en=fd899045c7070659&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

Is it too early to start the search for Brodhead's successor?

[Crawdad]

From Liestoppers:

January 8, 2007

Dear Members of the Duke Community:

I write to greet you at the start of a new year. I also want to address
some important developments that have taken place while the University
was on break, and to offer some thoughts as we go forward.

Last spring, this community became embroiled in a major controversy
arising from a party held by members of the men's lacrosse team. It is
universally acknowledged that the behavior at the party was inappropriate
and unacceptable. Several factors came together to intensify the emotional
response to this event. Though vehemently denied by team members, the
accusations that resulted from the party raised deeply troubling questions
about sexual violence and racial subjugation, issues of fundamental
concern to any decent community. Passions were further intensified by a
series of statements by the Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong that a
rape had indeed taken place. Intense media coverage heightened these
passions, promoting an air of instant certainty about rapidly changing
"facts."

In the confusion of this situation, the University's response was guided
by two principles: that if true, the conduct that had been alleged was
grave and should be taken very seriously, and that our students had to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty through the legal process.

As perceptions of the story changed, the University continued to maintain
the need for broad deference to the legal process. If this case has taught
us anything, it is our need for a legal process based in fairness, the
rule of evidence, and withholding judgment until the truth is established.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" last fall, I noted that given the
concerns that had been raised, when the case came before a judge and jury,
Mr. Nifong's case would be on trial as much as the students would. But as
that comment recognized, the road to a resolution necessarily involved
going through legal process, not outside or around it.

In mid-December, there were important developments as the legal process
entered the courtroom. These included the revelation, in sworn testimony,
that the district attorney had not shared with the indicted students
potentially exculpatory evidence from the DNA tests. Also, on December 22,
the Friday afternoon before Christmas, the district attorney announced
that he was dropping the rape charge because the accuser was no longer
certain about her claim. After Christmas, the North Carolina State Bar
announced that it had reviewed concerns about the district attorney's
public statements and found grounds to file a formal complaint. Days
later, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys also called
on Mr. Nifong to recuse himself in this case.

On December 22, I issued a statement saying that, given the certainty with
which the district attorney made his public statements regarding the rape
allegation, his decision to drop that charge must call into question the
validity of the remaining charges. I added that the district attorney
should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can
restore confidence in the fairness of the process. That last phrase is,
for me, the heart of the matter. We entrust our conflicts to the law to
provide a path to a fair resolution. But to earn this faith from the public,
those who work in the legal process must behave with elemental fairness and
regard for the rights of those involved. We need and deserve for that faith
to be restored.

In the wake of these new circumstances, I concluded upon the recommendation
of Vice President Moneta that we should offer reinstatement to Collin
Finnerty and Reade Seligmann so that they can return to Duke and resume
their studies. (David Evans graduated last spring.) Interim suspension,
the policy measure that had been invoked last April, is not a disciplinary
measure or judgment of guilt. It is a temporary measure taken when a
student is charged with a violent crime, and its use must balance a
variety of factors, including the gravity of the charge, the presumption
of innocence, the possibility of danger to the student or the community,
and the need of students to continue with their education. Although the
two students still face serious charges, in the changed circumstances,
it seems only right to strike the balance at a different point. The fair
thing is to allow the students to continue with their studies.

We all pray that the legal matter will be resolved in a fair and speedy
fashion. But as a university, we also need to look to the future and see
how we can learn from this chapter of history. By facing the lessons of
this painful episode, we can make Duke a better place. Let me outline a
few specifics.

First, we still have work to do on this campus. One thing that has made
this event so difficult is that particular charges against individuals
have tended to be conflated with larger community issues of race, gender,
privilege, and respect. During these hard months, some have seemed to
imply that if you insist on the students' innocence, then you must not
care about the underlying issues. Others have seemed to suggest that if
you insist on the underlying issues, then you must not care about fair
treatment for the students.

But it is essential that we separate the legal case from the larger
cultural issues and give each its separate, appropriate response. The
Campus Culture Initiative, begun last year and due to report this spring,
is not a referendum on the party last March. It is an effort to visualize
the best community we could make for students to grow and learn in, a
community of mutual respect and vibrant mutual engagement. It will be all
of our work to advance toward that goal. I see this as a chance to build
on existing strengths in our educational experience and to press toward
higher ambitions: the latest chapter in Duke's long history of self-
improvement.

Just as important, we must work together to restore the fabric of mutual
respect. One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and
faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in
ongoing debates, often by individuals - sometimes anonymous - outside the
Duke community. In the age of instantaneous worldwide media coverage,
members of the lacrosse team were judged around the world on the basis of
highly selective, highly prejudicial coverage last spring. A number of
them were subjected to vile abuse. More recently, a group of Duke faculty
members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely
attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in
highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of
their statements on the lacrosse event.

We want to see an end to these destructive assaults. We cannot change the
nature of modern communications, but we can make an effort on this campus
to promote more constructive dialogue and a more charitable atmosphere for
exchange. This does not mean that troublesome issues should now be avoided.
It's the mark of maturity in a university when hard issues can be freely
and vigorously engaged, and this past year has shown us many areas in need
of discussion and debate. But it does mean that we need to be less quick to
take offense at the words of others, and work harder to understand what
others are actually trying to say - even if we then disagree with it.

In its very difficulty, this moment gives us a chance to strengthen the
climate of respectful engagement in this community, and it is crucial that
we come together to seize the chance. Turning conflict among divergent
points of view into the basis for mutual education is at the core of the
university's work.

Last, in the heat of recent debates, there's been a danger that we will
lose sight of something fundamental, and I want to say it on all of our
behalf. This is a great university, one of the greatest in the world.
The vigor, intelligence, and devotion of each member of this community -
faculty, students, and staff - are what make Duke great. This place needs
all of us. And all of us are incalculably lucky to be part of this place,
and to have the others who surround us for partners and colleagues.

Duke can and will become better yet, and it's our business to make it so.
This is the season of the New Year - a time for new starts and fresh
beginnings. Let's work together to make our university as great as it can
be.



Richard H. Brodhead
President

[Locomotive Breath]

I just saw that. I rest my case. Move for summary judgment.

[Alia]

P.S. I'd never heard the term "snow show" before. I asked the person, and the person explained it to me. Just a point of curiosity, is the term "snow show" a local/regional term, do you know?

[Locomotive Breath]

Never heard it before. The closest one I know about is referring to white people as "skiers".

[Alia]

"skiers"? Okay, good to know. Thank you.

[Locomotive Breath]

I haven't heard that in a long time. The language moves on.

[bvw]

Dear President Brodhead,

The duty of a teacher is to his students first. The duty of a college is to its collegians. In this case you put something else first. What was that? Sir, in your own words that was "deeply troubling questions about sexual violence and racial subjugation, issues of fundamental concern to any decent community".

The falsely accused students who should have enjoyed the care, concern and support of the University, the professors and all the staff and organizations out of the duty of a teacher to his students, the ideals of mutual brotherhood and organizational loyalty of a college -- "collegiality" -- were instead tossed into the cold and fierce wildings of the media and faddish social scorns. Your faculty's Committee of 88 and the hateful rallies made sure those young men, though as time has shown innocent of the claimed crimes, were marked indelibly and boldly with the equivalent of a 2006 Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter.

You, sir, sent those young men into Hell.

And now you complain when that Hell awakes and turns on the devils who called for it. Upon you and significant parts of your faculty and student body. Oh! We cry for you! That such scorn and hate-filled vile rhetoric is brought against you!

Do you understand what you did to your own charges, sir? Those young men sent by their loving families at great cost and pride (once they did have pride!) to your magnificent and renowned institution of higher learning. How you and yours hurt them -- left them abandoned!

Here, sir, is your own *chance* to learn.

But this letter, this letter of January 8th in the year 2007 common era, it reads when all the phrasings are digested and the germ at the heart of it is revealed -- only one way.

What is the nub of it? That you haven't learned. That you have no regrets. That perhaps you can not learn. But that you can whine. And do.

Duty, sir, is absent in this letter. Heart and understanding, sir, are only veneer and hollow in it.

Excuses, sir, denial, sir, those are that with which it is full.

Sincerely,
Freeper bvw

[Alia]

It sure does. And there are communist academics who wish to hasten that "language shifting" along. I hadn't realized that Houston Baker and Stanley Fish were so heavily involved with Academic "language" organizations. I should have pinged you on another post. Data about Houston Baker and Stanley Fish from 1992. I've posted it on the other thread, excerpts. Here's the link to the full article (it's a pdf, eye-straining reading so you may wish to copy and pull into a word file, e.g.), if you wish.

I'm reading this article and thinking about "words equals rape".

[Alia]

Just bumping your post.

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=97693&SecID=2

Murder of NCCU student appears random
Updated: 1/5/2007 9:06 PM