“Faculty Survivors” (Nov. 27)

Last week's “Faculty Survivors” show featured Duke Professor Thomas J. Crowley who offered Hoax Case “items” he said people had overlooked.

"Items" such as:

”Why was the woman sober when she arrived and staggering to the point of passing out a mere 30 minutes later? Was she possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink? If so, what were the motives?

It all seemed very important. Crowley looked like a sure bet to make it to the season’s final show.

Then blogger KC Johnson, a professor himself, asked Crowley what he knew about toxicology testing done at Duke Hospital the night of the alleged crimes. Test results were negative.

As KC subsequently reported:

Crowley responded: [original all caps]

I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOXICOLOGY REPORT.

Oops! And you guessed it: Professor Crowley isn’t back this week.

BUT DON’T TOUCH THAT REMOTE.

I want you to meet the newest member of our “Faculty Survivors” cast, blogger and former Duke Professor Stuart Rojstaczer

Rojstaczer brings to the show some things we haven’t heard before.

Tell us about them, Stuart:

“Lately, I’ve read blogs about the Duke lacrosse scandal that have a severe right-wing slant. They tend to focus on a few points.

First, they state outright that the charges against the lacrosse players are bogus.”

I know some bloggers do that. Many don't even bother providing a parental warning. They just come right out and say the charges are bogus. And that concerns you, does it?

”If [that] were their only issue, I’d have no problem. But it doesn’t just stop there. They tend to go on and on." […]

By “they.” I assume you’re talking about blogs such as Durham-in-Wonderland, Johnsville News and Liestoppers.

You should know I respect those blogs and visit them every day. So do many of our “Faculty Survivors” viewers.

But, Stuart, we want to hear what you think. So tell us, besides saying the players are innocent, what else do the bloggers do that upsets you?

”[They] demonize the “Group of 88,” the 88 faculty members that signed an advertisement in the Duke student newspaper decrying the state of race relations at Duke."

Stuart, I’m sorry to cut you off on this but next week’s entire show is devoted to the “Group of 88.” And we’re running out of time. Can you quickly summarize what it is you’re saying?

“Essentially, these bloggers are trying to use the lacrosse scandal as a way not only to state the innocence of the lacrosse players, but: 1) perpetuate the status quo of a student culture where debauchery trumps academics; 2) make a quixotic attempt to remove left wing faculty at Duke.

As for issue number one, I don’t think they need to make this effort.”

Stuart, you’re going on and on. Briefly, what are you saying?

”The culture of debauchery and anti-intellectualism at Duke will not go away. No one in Duke leadership has a sincere interest in changing this culture.”

I’m worried our viewers are confused. You seem more upset with Duke than with the bloggers.

A few closing thoughts, Stuart. Ten seconds:

"The right-wing bloggers don’t have to worry. Duke will be Duke for the foreseeable future. It's one of the reasons why I left."

I see. Well, thank you.

We’re out of time. Remember, folks, next week’s our “Group of 88” show._________________________________________

Professor Rojstaczer says more in his blog post. He and Durham-in-Wonderland’s KC Johnson comment on the thread.

Be sure to read Liestoppers response to Rojstaczer.

Also, Johnsville News responds here. (Scroll down)