Duke’s Chapel Dean responds.

I recently posted, “Duke lacrosse: A letter to the Chapel Dean.”

I wrote the Dean of Duke University’s Chapel, Revd. Canon Dr. Sam Wells, after reading remarks attributed to him by the Durham Herald Sun which said, for example:

The Rev. Canon Sam Wells, Dean of Duke Chapel and one of [five panelists from Duke’s Campus Cultural Initiative committee], said he believes the university is in the third of three chapters.

The first chapter, Wells said, ran from the 1920s to the late 1950s, with the world -- as seen by Duke -- run by a particular class, race and religious tradition and summed up in one word: "Privilege."

I asked Dean Wells whether he had actually made the remarks the H-S attributed to him and explained why I hoped he hadn’t. I told the Dean I’d post in full his response.

Dean Wells responded promptly. I sent him a brief email to clarify his response. Again, Dean Wells responded promptly.

Below are Dean Wells’ initial response, my clarification email, and the Dean’s response to it.

At the end of this post I make a few brief comments.
_________________________________

Dean Wells’ response to my letter:

Dear johnincarolina

I think I can give you a little reassurance about my remarks on September 29. I suggested that there is a dominant narrative at an institution like Duke which is seldom articulated but widely accepted.

The narrative is that in chapter one institutions of this kind were largely characterized by a certain class, race and gender segment of the population; this era is often now described as the era of privilege. Chapter two, so the story goes, was the era when the so-called excluded groups forced their entry into the citadel. We now appear to be in an era that one might call chapter three: but the most evidently rival groups seem to take their models from one or other of the two previous eras, either wishing for a restoration of order, dignity and duty, or wishing for the remembered clarity of the civil rights period. The Duke Spring in some ways felt like a clash of these two forms of nostalgia.

I assumed that I had told the story in such a way that it was obvious I regarded the story as wholly inadequate. The flaws in it are too many to mention (as you point out), but one example is that religion is often assumed to be the preserve of chapter one, whereas in fact African Americans tend to among the most visibly religious groups and the story places them squarely in chapter two.

While I don't subscribe to this story (and so for the Herald-Sun to say I "believed" it was not correct) I do find it helpful to narrate this story in settings such as the one last Friday because, as I say, it is widely assumed, and its articulation not only makes it available for critique (which you provide) but I sense helps to identify part of what was "going on" on this campus last spring. The danger is that articulating (or quoting) a story can lead to the misunderstanding that one endorses such a story, as seems to have happened in this case.

Such is the nature of agreeing to appear on hastily arranged panels on controversial topics in informal settings where the media are nonetheless present. It is a risk I encounter quite frequently: hence my reluctance to take steps to correct misunderstandings, except when, as now, specifically provoked to do so.

I regret also that you found my remarks last April unhelpful. I tried hard to make no judgement on the case itself, but to accept that sexual violence was an important issue, and to outline what a theological response to it might look like.

You may remember that my remarks coincided with Sexual Assault Awareness Week on the campus here. Such remarks are likewise subject to misunderstanding, particularly when every public statement is taken simply to be 'for' or 'against' selected individuals or issues. There can be a difference in emphasis between people who are trying to engage with what has been going on over the last few months (hence my use of the term 'the Duke Spring') and those like yourself whose concern is, understandably, focused on the lacrosse case itself and those most likely to be hurt by it.

What is in fact a difference of emphasis can appear to be a difference in conviction, as your rather polemical blog portrays.

With best wishes

Sam Wells

The Revd Canon Dr Sam Wells
Dean of the Chapel and
Research Professor of Christian Ethics

PS Lest there be any future misunderstanding, I am not in the habit of maintaining correspondence with anonymous writers, so I shall not be responding to any further dialogue on this issue.
________________________________

My email seeking clarification:


Thank you, Dean Wells, for your response. I'm happy to publish it in full.

That said, I trust you'll understand the following query is meant only to inform JinC readers and others regarding whether or not you inadvertently left something very important out of your response.

I refer, you may have already guessed, to your failure to say whether, as the Herald Sun reported, you used the term "nostalgia fest" when referring to people questioning what some Duke leaders did and didn't do when the hoaxer made her false witness, and others enabled her false witness and the witch hunt that followed.

As a "nostalgia fest” memory jog, Dean Wells, I asked in my email whether you were referring to people questioning what, if anything, President Brodhead said or did when racists on May 18 repeatedly shouted threats, including death threats, at Reade Seligmann.

To put the matter simply: Did you use the term "nostalgia fest;" and if you did, what do you mean by it?

Sincerely,

John
_______________________________________

Dean Wells’ response to my email seeking clarification:

Dear John

As I think I said in my earlier message, I think part of the misunderstanding here is that you are considering the precise history and details of the so-called lacrosse case, where as I (in the spirit of the campus culture initiative, which was the subject under discussion at the panel 10 days ago) was referring to the wider discussion taking place on campus last spring, and to some extent still continuing.

It is unfortunate that , on the one hand, some of those who regard the accusations leading to the arrests as illegitimate seem to infer from that that the wider campus discussion is also illegitimate; it is also unfortunate that, on the other hand, those who sense that the wider campus discussion is timely assume (or are assumed to assume) a particular view on the likely outcome of and justification for this case. Hence my exasperation when you seem to take comments about the wider discussion to be the expression of a view on the precise case. We are simply talking about different things - albeit related ones.

I consider myself one who senses the wider campus discussion is timely but who feels unqualified to make a judgement on the details of the case. That does not stop me seeking to hold to certain principles, among them the presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven, and the withholding of judgement on a social group despite the emotive nature of alleged behavior of one or two members of that group.

My remarks at the cci panel could be broadly summarized as 'it is time to plan for the future rather than dwell on the past'. The term 'nostalgia fest' referred to the temptation to use these circumstances as a way of rehashing arguments about the twentieth century history of the South. It was not an observation on particularly regrettable moments in this sorry episode. I find it hard to understand how a sympathetic reading of even the newspaper article might be drawn to interpret it that way.

Of course the history of the South is important but these turbulent circumstances are perhaps not the best time to agree upon it. Unfortunately the reporting (and thus your comments) highlighted the illustrations I gave of the shortcomings of dwelling on the past, rather than the encouragement to plan for the future.

Sincerely

Sam Wells

The Revd Canon Dr Sam Wells
Dean of the Chapel and
Research Professor of Christian Ethics
____________________________________________

Folks,

There are some things Dean Wells says with which I disagree or which I question. There are important things he didn’t say that I wish he had. I’ll return to those matters another day.

Today, I want this post to be what I promised Dean Wells it would be: A publication in full of his response to my letter.

I plan to send Dean Wells an email thanking him for his response. I'll include a link to this post.

Your comments are welcome.

John