At a recent press conference Duke Men’s basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski spoke about the racial aspect of the Duke lacrosse case: “The racial aspect of this, in some ways, has been the most sensitive thing and some people have tried to create something that isn’t there in our community.”
Reasonable people will agree with Coach K that the race aspect of the case, if not its most sensitive aspect, is certainly one of them. And after reading Professor Houston Baker’s letter, listening to the rants of some Duke faculty and the New Black Panthers, and watching DA Nifong in action, who doubts that some people have exploited a terrible situation by “creating something that isn’t there?”
With Coach K’s remarks in mind, let’s look at what Duke professor of cultural anthropology Orin Starn did with them in an Apr. 2 Raleigh News & Observer op-ed, "Let talk Sports."
Starn told readers we have “learned from the men’s basketball coach :”
Those who see a "racial aspect" to the lacrosse case have "tried to create something that isn't there."After sharing some of his take on the racial aspect of the case, Starn told readers:
It's hard to understand how Coach K or anyone else could not see a ‘racial aspect’ here.What Starn told readers Coach K said is the opposite of what the coach actually said.
No one reading Starn’s op-ed could miss his biases toward Coach K. They reek throughout it. But even allowing for them, how could Starn have gotten such a simple but important matter so wrong?
I’m sending Starn the following email which includes a link to this post. I’ll let you know if he responds. I’m also sending the N&O an email letter to the editor, a copy of which follows my email to Starn.
I’ll soon post on other parts of Starn’s op-ed that disturbed me as much or more than his misrepresentation of Coach K's statement.
Also, I hope you take a look at historian and Brooklyn College Professor KC Johnson's lucid and detailed response to Starn. Johnson's post is titled "Shameless."
_____________________________________________
Dear Professor Starn:
I blog as John in Carolina and read your Raleigh N&O op-ed, “Let’s Talk Sports.” I’ve just posted a response. Here's the URL:
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/07/
duke-lacrosse-prof-misrepresents-coach.html
Surely we can agree that at his recent press conference Coach K said: “The racial aspect of this, in some ways, has been the most sensitive thing and some people have tried to create something that isn’t there in our community.”
Could Coach K have been any clearer when he said the “racial aspect of [the Duke lacrosse case is], in some ways, its most sensitive aspect?”
And after reading Houston Baker’s letter, listening to the rants of some Duke faculty and the New Black Panthers, and watching DA Nifong at work, who doubts that some people have exploited a terrible situation by creating “something that isn’t there?”
Yet you told N&O readers: “It's hard to understand how Coach K or anyone else could not see a ‘racial aspect’ here.”
Frankly, Professor Starn, it’s hard to understand how you could have misrepresented what Coach K actually said, even allowing for your bias toward him.
Whatever the explanation, you owe Coach K an apology and N&O readers a correction.
In the coming days I’ll be posting on other parts of your op-ed.
In the meantime, why do you single Mike Nifong out for resignation? He had so many enablers. Shouldn’t they be held to account?
Sincerely,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
_______________________________________________
To the editor
At a June 20 press conference Duke University’s Men’s basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski said this about the Duke lacrosse case: “The racial aspect of this, in some ways, has been the most sensitive thing and some people have tried to create something that isn’t there in our community” The coach couldn't have been clearer about there being a racial aspect to the case, could he?
So why does Duke professor of cultural anthropology Orin Starn (“Let’s talk sports,” July 2 Op-ed page) use selective quotes from Coach K’s statement to create and pass on to N&O readers the following misrepresentation of what the coach actually said: "Those who see a 'racial aspect' to the lacrosse case have 'tried to create something that isn't there?’'' And why does Starn compound his misrepresentation by saying: “It's hard to understand how Coach K or anyone else could not see a ‘racial aspect’ here?”
What fair-minded readers will find hard to understand is why Professor Starn misrepresented what Coach K said. Starn owes the coach an apology.
For his part, Coach K might use Starn’s misrepresentation the next time he’s talking about people trying to “create something that isn’t there.”
Sincerely,
____________________________________________________
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=299360
http://www.newsobserver.com/691/story/456646.html
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/27726.html
9 comments:
I read the original editorial and I must agree with everything you just said (wrote).
Either he's a fool (possible) or he's keeping on with the great tradition of Fish.
-AC
This may be a bit off topic, but I'm hoping some of the readers of this blog will come over to the Editors Blog at the N&O and begin posting the questions we want answered about this case ...questions the Editor has ignored. Let's establish a record of sorts. I posted the following today. Thank you.
***
I suggest that those of us who post here make a list of questions about this case that we would like to see the N&O explore. It will stand as a record of sorts and at no time in the future can the N&O plead ignorance to the existance of or their avoidance of these questions.
This is a paper that assigned ,allegedly , TWELVE reporters to uncover every misbehavior and misdeamenor of a group of college students for a front page story. The Editor tells us they uncovered a "pack mentality." Some of us fear we see a pack mentality among the officails, police, press and prosecutor in Durham. We compare the original hard-driving reporting when the "targets" were out-of-town college boys ....to the passive natureof the reporting now. Why? Because it's far easy to target college boys than local cronies in positions of power?
Let's begin compiling our questions and if necessary we will E-mail them to Melanie Sill.
In the future it will be on record that this newspaper was aware of these questions. It will be evident to all that the N&O chose to ignore them.
****
AC,
When you reference former Duke Professor Stanley Fish are you thinking of, among other things, the article Social Forces published which parodied all that Fish, then the editor of Social Forces, was proclaiming but which the "editors" at Social Forces didn't recognize as a parody and published?
If yes, a great "catch" and can you come back here with more info. I'll post on the matter.
I'd dig the material out except that I'm up to may neck in other stuff.
Joan,
I'll try to post tomorrow some questions I'd ask the N&O if I was still commenting there.
Now here:
Orin Starn is trying to do a little damage control for his department. It is a rare collection of post-modern nutjobs who (with the exception of Starn) have zero productivity or substance.
The chairperson, Anne Allison, whose academic specialty is Marxist interpretation of Pokemon and Barbie dolls (i kid you not), was one of the prime movers for the Faculty of 88 Vigilante Letters promising revenge on white men "no matter what the polic investigation shows"
She was previously caught and censored for using departmental monies to take out similar newspaper pressure ads against the Iraq war.
I suspect she also pressured her faculty in her department to sign onto the Vigilante letter since nearly all did.
She may have opened herself up to legal liability.
Folks,
"Now here" above should have continued with an explanation that a comment was deleted in that place because it attacked the person rather than demonstrated behavior.
So just calling a person a liar, for instance, is unacceptable at Jin C unless you produce a strong case the person is a liar. False statements aren't by themselves lies. There must be the case for intention to deceive.
Getting into how you feel about bathing after reading something a person says in entirely out of bounds here.
John
Check out the Betsy's Page blog for July 5. Excellent post on Duke lacrosse.
Yes, I was thinking of both Fish and the satire.
Post modernist critique of post modern krep if you ask me.
-AC
Couldn't help it, John. My objections, at this point,are purely personal. They always are when I look upon total intentional deceit. When all arguments based on fact and morality have no impact and are used as justifications for shutting off honest debate, the only thing left is an attack on the person.
It is sort of like a mugging. When persuasion doesn't get the mugger to cease his harmful ways, it is right and just to quit the philosophical argument and attack his person.
Alan Sokal's parody, and Stanley Fish's response:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/fish.html
Fish seems like the kind of guy who will blather around in a bunch of circles, think that he has said something noteworthy or intelligent, and look at you expectantly for praise.
Post a Comment