On Feb. 12 on Duke West Campus African and African American and Cultural Anthropology professor Charlie Piot, a signatory of the now discredited faculty Group of 88 "listening statement," delivered a vicious ad hominem which targeted historian and Brooklyn College professor Robert KC Johnson, a leading critic of the statement as well as some individual signees whose actions have shocked many in the Duke community and elsewhere.
Piot didn't make print copies of his attack available; and event "sponsors" won't release to Johnson and others a tape of Piot's ad hominem.
Piot says he can't release his "lecture" because he's promised it to a journal editor who accepted it on condition Piat not make copies available.
That's an odd explanation given Piot read his "lecture" before an audience estimated at more than 150.
I've posted on all of the above (here and here). I also sent Piot links to my posts and requested he answer at least two questions:
Per your Feb 12 lecture:Piot responded with the following email:
1) Am I right that you accused Johnson, of “inciting racist attacks on [Duke] African-American professors?” (I have that as a quote in my notes.)
2) Did you say, as my notes indict, that at his blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, Johnson practiced “common strategies [used] among totalitarian regimes” which you’ve studied?
I hope, Professor Piot, I’m wrong about both questions.
If I am, I want to work with you to correct what I attributed to you.
Dear John in Carolina,I wasn't asking Piot for "a back and forth." He could have answered each question with a "Yes" or "No."
Sorry, but I don't have the time to get in a back and forth about this.
My piece will go to press sometime in late April/May, and you can read it then.
CP
I take his refusal to answer my questions as a "Yes."
I mean, what kind of academic passes on the chance to simply say, "No, I didn't say another academic incited racial attack's on African American professors?"
I'll soon say more about Piot and the Group of 88.
13 comments:
It will be interesting to see what caliber "academic" journal will publish his speach.
You're not going to see anything remotely resembling what Piot said at the forum.
What you'll get is is another inscrutable missive bemoaning the "campus culture" at Duke that allows underage drinking and party's with strippers to take place.
You'll get a few paragraphs regarding "outside agitators" with no known connection to Duke stirring up trouble, printing unspeakable lies on their blog and generally making intellectual life outside the warm coccoon of the AAS department miserable.
You'll get no "back and forth" from Piot or any of the other Gang O'88 because there is nothing to debate. They have spoken, you need to listen, and learn about your hateful racist ways.
You'll get no specific refutation of anything KC has posted because even the dear professors of impenetrable text and circular reasoning can't refute easily researched facts.
They'll go after the commenters instead,about how KC incites and invites racists, but of course, the absurdity of that claim and the hypocrisy of that position will zip right past those who have thanked the pot bangers calling for the excoriation of the three LAX players, and of course, not waiting.
The 88 professors who signed their particular indictment of the young men will not answer to anyone, certainly not another professor with "no known connection to Duke" or some blogger who pesters them with pointed questions requiring a simple yes or no answer.
You'll get none of that because they know, as everyone who has been watching closely knows, they grossly overstepped their bounds both as employees of Duke and also as human beings.
They threw the dice in the hopes that this gross miscarriage of justice would prove them right, that three rich white boys did rape a struggling young black mother, and those dice just happened to come up snake eyes.
They'll be happy to just let this wash on by, waiting, anticipating the next sensationalzed incident that will allow them to climb back atop Mount Morality and lecture we unwashed about the evils of racism, sexism and ... what the hell ... rhuematism, any old "ism" will do.
I was there and confirm he said those things.
Anon @ 12:45 PM,
You bet!
Humboldblue,
May I call you HB?
You say: "They have spoken, you need to listen, and learn about your hateful racist ways."
Indeed, I've heard Lubliano use the term "directed eductation."
LB,
You asked me to get up with you off line the other day.
Will you respond?
I need to ask you a question.
Best,
John
You didn't really expect an answer from this racist reprobate. You just wanted to expose him for the fraud he is. True, he could have thwarted your evil plan by being a man, but that does not relieve you of your guilt for demanding that we all play the same civilized rules.
Only a true bigot would demand honesty and integrity from a member of a minority's minority. Believe me, he is a minority's minority. It is just hateful that you would recognize an agglomeration of 88 bigots bent on creating more harm than they ameliorate, so they may appear essential in a learning environment.
John, I just feel bad that you would take steps to marginalize these marginal miseducators. Do you have some kind of vendetta against liars? Even if they are black and stupid? I'm not sure, but I think that's against the law. I know it is against political correctness to openly demand morality from certain groups of folks. And no, I don't mean black folks. I mean race baiters.
I hope if they ever prosecute such expectations that you and I can share a cell. I certainly do have a thing against reprobates, liars, and the morally deficient that sell their own out.
"May I call you HB?"
Sure as hell beats what I am normally called, HB works for me.
"directed eductation."
I posted a quote the other day from the FIRE website regarding Michigan State's speech code that demands "mandatory re-education" for a student making any comment that is interpreted as hateful or in any way "hurts" someone else.
Of course, the interpreting is done by the likes of Lubiano and Piot, so you can damn well be sure that mandatory re-education lecture/class/forum will be full.
I just get visions of the "Killing Fields" when I see that phrase ... re-education.
(Oh, and any student who must endure mandatory re-education must pay for it themselves.)
re racial attacks against AAAS professors
Before the lacrosse scandal, it was indeed an iffy proposition to attack Angry Studies and its well-protected, sinecure-sucking mediocrities. Things have changed drastically--now is the time to examine the antimale and antiwhite mediocrities that populate these departments.
What I'm calling for is a manifesto, signed by thousands of Duke alumni, that documents the relationship between Angry Studies and a dangerous campus environment for poor unfortunates like Collin, David, and Reade. What I'm calling for is its dissolution.
The reason AAAS is claiming "racism" is because they know they are vulnerable. Another tactic they use is baiting posters on DIW. H..Blue was one of the geniuses who didn't recognize the tactic. But when you lack creativity, sometimes it's fun to attack the talented--right Blue?
Why hasn't anyone studied what it costs to accommodate this obsolete, cognitively challenged program?
Meanwhile, no one is discussing how CGM should be punished by society.
James F. Clyne
editor/art director/producer
Piot is a parasite on the body of the University. I am deeply concerned that my contributions have helped pay his salary. No more. sic semper tyrannis
Dear Mr. Clyne:
We don't go for name-calling here.
If someone makes a false statement you lay out the falsehood as part of saying the person is making a falsehood.
Almost all the people who comment at JinC are reasonable and civil. Some of them are especially helpful because they use facts to point out my errors and avoid name-calling.
There’s nothing personal when I hit the “delete.” I’m just trying to hold to a standard I think works for my blog. Other bloggers have different standards.
Readers like you can pick and choose among us.
John
okey-dokey, John
My basic problem with this case is that few core issues are being addressed--on deadline--will post on this later.
BTW, John, you're going to find that this blog will start to outshine DIW because a lot of the creative posters over there are fed up with KC Johnson, whose competence as an editor I will also be addressing.
Know this: I'll respect your guidelines, and I will cite precisely where Polanski was railroaded at DIW bt Blue and Cedarford.
This is not name-calling: Google "Cedarford" and draw your own conclusions.
Polanski is dead.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Clyne
I thought I was vitriolic accusing John of being upright and moral. Damn! I just don't know d*ck about vitriol.
I don't know why anyone has not questioned the very very long time it has taken the Special Prosecutors to decide whether to move ahead with this case. If this many people had to examine every possible prosecution with as little evidence as this case has, there would be no one left in North Carolina to do anything else.
There is no evidence of anything but lying by the accuser. Why can't these highly-paid prosecutors figure this out within two months?
Post a Comment