Wednesday, February 14, 2007

“NO KNOWN CONNECTION TO DUKE”

On Feb. 12, I heard Duke University African and African American & Cultural Anthropology professor Charlie Piot deliver an ad hominem that was billed as a lecture. Piot’s target was historian, professor and blogger Robert KC Johnson. See here for a few quotes and summary of what Piot said.

Piot didn’t make copies of his remarks available and taping was not permitted. I’ve emailed Piot and asked that he post his remarks so we can compare them with what Johnson has actually said

Piot’s a signatory of the Duke faculty’s Group of 88’s now discredited “listening statement.” Johnson’s spotlighted the Group of 88’s prejudgment and abandonment of Duke students falsely charged with major felonies by a hoaxer and rogue DA. He’s also exposed conduct by individual Group of 88 members that many in the Duke community and elsewhere find shocking. For examples of Johnson's "88" postings see here, here and here.

Piot’s attack drew loud applause from the audience of about 150 that included other Group of 88 members and many of their students.

While we wait for Piot to post (fingers crossed), I want to respond to a recurrent theme in his ad hominem: “Johnson, with no known connection to Duke, ….”

Piot said it at least three times with emphasis on each word.

He reminded me of folks here in Durham who before the election were saying things like: “With no connection to Durham, that person still dares to criticize our DA, Mike Nifong.

Piot reminded me of a few other things ----

For more than 30 years I’ve had various connections to DU’s Medical Center. During that time physicians and research scientists from all over the world with no known connection to Duke have been sending letters, journal articles and lengthy emails to Duke physicians and scientists.

Often what is sent is critical of something being done at DUMC - a research study design or interpretation or maybe a patient treatment protocol, for example.

The DUMC physicians and scientists are, of course, interested in who sent the material, but their main interest is to determine whether the material, especially critical material, can help them and those they serve.

And that’s what you’d expect of them, isn’t it?

What kind of Duke physicians and scientists would assess material, especially material critical of what they’re doing, with emphasis on a critic’s “ no known connection to Duke?”

Piot’s “no known connection to Duke” repetitions exposed, IMO, a self-indulgent insularity which, while no doubt a salve to his ego, is absolutely antithetical to what Duke A&S faculty are supposed to be.

It was no surprise to see Piot’s faculty “88” colleagues applaud him. All the ones we’ve heard from since last April have manifested the same self-indulgent insularity and hostility to reasoned criticism that fueled Piot’s ad hominem targeting Johnson.

But I was very saddened to see the students also applaud Piot. I think that’s because, like most people, I have hope for the young.

Driving home after the event and since, I’ve found myself wanting to say a few things to the students.

It didn’t matter whether any of the nine U. S. Supreme Court justices who ruled in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education had any known connection to the school board. The justices’ valid finding that racially separate public schools are inherently unequal, and therefore unconstitutional, is what mattered.

Professor John Hope Franklin, who helped prepare the brief that argued that position before the court, could tell the students that. He’s a Duke emeritus professor who’s often on campus and enjoys talking with students. I’m sure many of the students listening to Piot that other night have met Franklin.

Franklin could also tell the students that many people with no known connection to the University of Mississippi were very critical of its segregation policies. They supported James Meredith when he sought to enroll there despite opposition from much of the faculty.

I’d ask the students if they agreed Meredith could never have enrolled at Mississippi without the help of those people.

I’d listen to what they said; thank them for giving me a chance to make my point; and wish them well.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.

I cannot wish the dishonest and racist well. I always hope they reap the payment they have earned.

AMac said...

J-in-C --

Readers may wish to ask themselves why the reasoned, issues-oriented, fact-based discussion on issues pertaining to the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax reliably and predictably comes from one side, and one side only.

No member of the Group of 88 or their many supporters has yet written an explanation of their activities in the case that meets those three rather basic criteria.

I hope I'm wrong, and a commenter will guide me by providing a link to such an essay.

Or--almost as good--maybe one of the Group will be inspired by such writing as is on display at J-in-C, D-i-W, LieStoppers, and FODU. Perhaps they will write and publish that piece.

Either way, the debate would greatly benefit from good-faith efforts of that type.

Those arguments would stand a good chance of being more persuasive than ad hominems.

Anonymous said...

JinC - since it is Valentine's Day ~ have I told you lately that I love you?

Thanks for all you do to bring rational thinking and clarity to this mess.

Anonymous said...

Professor Piot or Professor Johnson. You make the call.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John

My first thought when I read that remark on "connection", provided by LB's posted notes, was how terrible it would be if those with no connection did not help.

Their world keeps growing smaller each day.

Anonymous said...

LOL. Professor Clown Piot.

Anonymous said...

Piot,like Aamanda have their following and they are welcome to it. They must be very jealous of KC and his blog and schlorship. Never did these people think they would be challanged and exposed.They don't like it. Here's to more and better blogginh with KC, Bill A and the rest.

Anonymous said...

In the midst of the civil rights protests in deep south in the fifties and sixties, racists often referred to their opponents as "outside agitators". Sounds like a re-run to me. The gang of 88 and their buddies cast attention and the hard questions as just agitators interfering. Just like the bigots who tried to maintain the status quo in Selma,Birmingham and Montgomery, they like their homegrown power and hate the light of examination.

Anonymous said...

Several of the 88 worked very hard to get their statements out to the public widely in the early months of the case and made no objection to the case garnering national attention when they were on their self-realization pseudo-intellectual jihad.

Anonymous said...

Several of the 88 worked very hard to get their statements out to the public widely in the early months of the case and made no objection to the case garnering national attention when they were on their self-realization pseudo-intellectual jihad.

Yet now they are so ashamed of themselves that they impose a media lockdown on their "Shut Up and Teach" meeting so that there is no record of what they said.

JiC - Would you PM me on FreeRepublic or Liestoppers please?

Greg Toombs said...

Criticism for thee but not for me!

Unknown said...

The irony of all this is that these professors insist that they have the right to be public intellectuals (which of course is true), but they are not willing to engage in a meaningful discussion of their postion with anyone outside their group (as they would have to do if they were truly public intellectuals). So their attitude can be boiled down to "I want to talk but I don't want to listen." No wonder so few people take them seriously.

Anonymous said...

Not only are you a blatherer -- you are a coward. Why didn't you have the cojones to say any of this in person at the event? Before receiving any reply to the people you write, you accuse and insult them. Lubiano is a girl, but she has them -- you don't.

Anonymous said...

" Not only are you a blatherer -- you are a coward. Why didn't you have the cojones to say any of this in person at the event? Before receiving any reply to the people you write, you accuse and insult them. Lubiano is a girl, but she has them -- you don't."

1:45 PM

Ah yes, 'Neema has balls is the gist of your post, I wonder if she let you check personally to find them.

Cowards are those who accuse innocent men of crimes they did not commit, then fail to stand by their words and actions.

Cowards are those who would threaten the freedom of students they are supposed to teach to advance an agenda that is subscribed to, by well, the same cowards who won't stand up for their own words.

Cowards are those, who, when faced with the damage they have caused through their actions and their words, attempt to cast themselves in the light as victims.

Cowards are those who would rather see three innocent men held over for trial regardless of the facts exonerating them, in order to push a social agenda that is not only incoherent and inconsistent, but runs contrary to the very idea of a university as a free market of ideas.

Cowards are those whose chosen fields of study are nothing more than a condemnation of others -- others who don't happen to drink the kool-aid.

Cowards are those who claim to be misinterpreted, as if "castrate" and "it's Sunday morning, time to confess" are ambiguous statements that can be read and understood in various ways.

Cowards are those who would blame others for their own failings. That's cowardice.

Cowards are those, who, after getting repeatedly hammered by their own utterings, hold a meeting and demand that no record of that meeting be made available.

So much for "listening statements," huh?

Who's listening to whom?

You're scared aren't you? You're scared that 'Neema and Piot, and Holloway have been exposed for the frauds that they are.

You're scared that the anger studies departments are being exposed as non-demanding indoctrination efforts by bigots and poorly-educated parrots who serve only as an echo-chamber for like-minded ninnies.

There's your cowardice.

Anonymous said...

Humboldtblue,

I'm so happy to see one express the humbleness we all have for this gang of 88! :)


I've a question about this "shut up and teach" meeting though.

It was held on a public university campus, which means the facilities belong to the state of NC. The "event" was open to the public and staged after a normal class time was over with. It was as well put on by state employees as well.

Yet the public has right to what went on within it? The content of this open/closed meeting is none of our business?

Did the G88 bunch rent the lecture hall for a public invited/private event? If so how much did they pay? Has it been paid for yet?

Anonymous said...

TC,

Glad I could make you smile, but I am afraid, as far as I understand it, Duke is a private university (as opposed to UNC or NC State) and they can do with their facilities as they see fit.

That doesn't excuse the moral and intellectual cowardice shown by professors who would condemn students who attend their university, but I would hazard a guess that the State has no say in the matter as to where and when they hold a meeting.

Anonymous said...

If anybody wants to talk about "No known connection", let's do so.

I hold that the Group of 88, Nifong, Gottlieb, et al. have no known connection with integrity, or honor, or honesty,or courage, or compassion,or justice, or liberty.

How's that for NO KNOWN CONNECTION?

Anonymous said...

Works for me Straightarrow

Anonymous said...

speaking of "no known connection" what about the new black panthers? you remember,
"dead man walking"

Anonymous said...

John,
The summary by LB of the "Teach In' reminded me of Tom Wolfe's taking notes at "The Party at Lenny's"aka Radical Chic.I can think of no reason not to allow recordings,other than deniability.More WSC please.
Corwin