| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Lefty Duke Profs run for cover |
| 2007-01-17 |
| Dear Duke Community. Now that we've been called on this, pretend it never happened... Dozens of Duke professors have posted "an open letter to the Duke community" on the Web, explaining an ad last spring that has been widely criticized as a condemnation of lacrosse players. Ooooooops. Jump the gun there, did we? The new letter, signed by 87 faculty and posted at www.concerneddukefaculty.org, refuses to apologize for the ad and reiterates concerns about issues of race and sexual violence on the Duke campus. It says the so-called "Group of 88" ad published in the Chronicle last April has been grossly misinterpreted. That ad has been a subject of heated debate on blogs, and its signers have received angry and sometimes racist e-mail messages. Ah, yes. "Grossly misinterpreted". Translated: We didn't say what we said. "The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused," the letter said. "Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case. ... We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence." It was actually a statement about the...ummmmmmmm...weather. Yeah! That's it! The letter was signed by "concerned faculty," many of whom endorsed the original ad. The ad, entitled, "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?", included anonymous statements by students talking about racism and sexism on the campus. The ad also thanked "protesters making collective noise." "Collective noise"? Sounds like one of Mao's... The letter this week has backed off that a bit, saying, "We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time." Ummmmm...which ones did you endorse? Which ones were you against? William Chafe, a history professor who signed both the ad and the letter, said the bloggers' interpretation of the ad has become the version people accepted. And that's wrong, he said. "We're trying to simply set the record straight and clarify we never claimed the lacrosse players were guilty," Chafe said. I ¢Ÿ Tenure. No matter what happens with the lacrosse sexual assault case, the letter said, issues of race and sexual violence still exist on campus and should be addressed.The "Group of 88" has been portrayed as politically correct, left-wing professors who rushed to assume lacrosse players were guilty of rape. The professors have been harshly criticized as the sexual assault case began to unravel. And there's only 88 of them? The rhetoric has been heated on the Duke campus, where President Richard Brodhead has called for a restoration of the "fabric of mutual respect." Two weeks ago, a group of economics professors signed a letter saying the professors supported lacrosse players and all student-athletes, and expressing regret that Duke professors were viewed as prejudiced against some students. That prompted an online petition signed by more than 450 Duke alumni and Duke supporters, standing behind the economics professors. Many of the petition signers targeted their anger at the "Group of 88." Holy shit ! We're outnumbered!! We never saw that coming! In the online letter, concerned faculty say they won't apologize despite the fury."There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character," the letter said. "We reject all of these. We think the ad's authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case." As always, we really see no need for an apology, so can we all just... pretend this never happened and get on with our tenured, well paid, cushy lives? You know, MOVE ON? |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #7 Kind of fitting in the home of post modernism - the first ad didn't mean what it plainly said. Odd that they weren't so anxious to clear up the misunderstanding back when it looked like the lacrosse players might be guilty. Or maybe not. |
| Posted by: Sheater Snavick4554 2007-01-17 22:37 |
| #6 A hundred years ago, a white women falsely accusing a group of black men would end up with a real lynching by a bunch of knuckle dragging low lifes and thrill seekers. Today, when a black woman falsely accuses a group of white boys it a bunch of self important arrogant unapologetic pseudo educated welfare for the lefty hanger-ons at what used to be an institution of 'higher learning' that engages in virtual lynchings. The story is the same, it's just the characters have changed places. It's never been about right or justice, it's always been about power. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-17 18:59 |
| #5 Funny that the school invited back the kids but a professor left. Ironic and probably a good trade off. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-01-17 18:16 |
| #4 Come on, guys. Let's not get hung up on facts here. It's all about truthiness. And feelings. All Hail the Narrative! Personally, I'm appalled at this racial lynch mob and Duke's whole-hearted participation in it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-17 17:23 |
| #3 The Duke 87 is apparently somewhat different than the Duke 88. Some profs dropped out and some profs, either wanting 15 minutes of fame or some support in getting tenure, joined. Organizers couldn't quite get enough replcements to get back to 88. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2007-01-17 16:35 |
| #2 "The disaster is the atmosphere...." -- we're told. The students' perceptions matter and deserve to be "give[n] voice." Perception is everything to these leftists. If something is percieved to have happened it is the same as happening. Except when what they have done or said is percieved differently than what they percieve. They want to stir things up but don't want to be responsible for what they unleash. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-01-17 16:33 |
| #1 87 sigs from the "Group of 88"? Need I guess who the holdout was? |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-01-17 16:21 |